The Center Stage

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The problem is, to develop perception, and the differences between objects, we actually needed to be able to perceive them beforehand.

Okay, Point being? We evolved the ability to perceive different objects because it was advantageous to.

What I'm saying is that there are things such as God and the singularity which cannot be perceived because they're not meant to be perceived. The fact that we can perceive certain objects means they must be designed for it, otherwise everything would be invisible, soundless etc.

Actually, no. Were planets designed to orbit stars? Are you saying that everything is the way it is because it is designed that way? If so, I'd like to see your evidence.

But we would have needed to perceive them first before we could develop the ability to differentiate.

Okay, but we evolved to perceive them so we could differentiate between them.

But what I'm saying is that there are still things which can't be perceived, because they're not supposed to be. I'm suggesting that perception was a random evolutionary experience we would be able to perceive everything, because perception would have then stemmed beyond sense perception to perceive that which we can't now.

Okay, that didn't really make any logical sense at all. The point is, that some things are much harder to perceive than others. Let's take neutrinos for example. They'll barely stop for anything, why would evolution favour any attempt to detect neutrinos? It won't, it's too costly wouldn't yield any benefits.

Also, why would we be able to perceive everything if we evolved? I don't see any reason for that. I mean, really, what sort of sensory organs would you need to have evolved to achieve that, and at what cost?

Additionally, your argument seems to stumble when we approach animals that can sense things that we don't. Like sharks that can detect electricity, insects and birds that can see different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, bats that have extremely sensitive hearing, or bloodhounds that have extremely good senses of smell. Is the stuff they can perceive designed to be perceived? Or is it just the stuff we can see?

Again, I'm saying the fact that we can do so suggests there must be something about those objects which allows us to perceive those, because there are other beings which don't.

Our eyes? Our nerves? The limitations of the human body?

I'm saying that you can't have universes that exist outside of time or space, because doing so would make it eternal. You cannot have eternity in a created being ebcause it would make it self-necessary, when the singularity would the be the only self-necessary being.

So, why can't those universes be self-neccessary, like your god?

Because it follows the logic of how a random, intellect-less potential would act.

Not really, what about Newtonian Mechanics? They're far from random, and they are intellect-less. Furthermore, explain to me the logic that brought you to that conclusion. I'd love to hear it.

But if the singularity is random how can you rule anything out? To assume it retains a degree of consistency and structure is to attribute it characteristics of an intellect.

Uh, okay, lets say that the conditions that determined the laws of physics are gone now. Basically, even if it's random, you can't roll a six if you can't roll a die.

I'm saying because there is no intellect, given the circumstances that natural selection rose, it didn't have to. I'm tryign to indicate that there appears to be far too much consistency and harmony for it to stem from randomness.

Natural selection is more like certain, once life arises, it has to happen. So, no it didn't stem from randomness. Our universe is so large, that life has to happen somewhere, it just happened to happen here. Anthropic principle again!

Firstly, time loop is rubbish, I've debated that countless times. Secondly, the planets are moved by laws of physics etc., they retain structure and consistency because they are not their own mover, unlike the singularity, which is the original mover.

Oh, but you've attacked the example but not the point? Why can't that possibility occur? Also, explain to me why the idea of the time loop is rubbish.

It's also theoretically impossible to disprove God, unless you argue that the original being can't have an intellect (which I have done before). Secondly, God is not complex in the way we think of it, most theists will atcually tell you God is simple.

Uh, well, If you look in the bible he's got a pretty complex personality, he created the universe with intent, he knows everything, he's all powerful and he's all-loving. That's a pretty complex being. So, all that physics stuff that we don't know, that's really complex, he knew all along. Or what about the future, in all its shades of complexity? He knows that. It stands to reason that the more complex a brain is, the more powerful it is. His is infinitely powerful, it must display some complexity, more so than our brains. A multiverse on the other hand is actually rather simple. This seems to clear things up:

Tegmark answers: "A skeptic worries about all the information necessary to specify all those unseen worlds. But an entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler. Similarly, the set of all solutions to Einstein's field equations is simpler than a specific solution. The former is described by a few equations, whereas the latter requires the specification of vast amounts of initial data on some hypersurface. The lesson is that complexity increases when we restrict our attention to one particular element in an ensemble, thereby losing the symmetry and simplicity that were inherent in the totality of all the elements taken together. In this sense, the higher-level multiverses are simpler. Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify initial conditions, upgrading to Level II eliminates the need to specify physical constants, and the Level IV multiverse eliminates the need to specify anything at all." He continues "A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos and find its strangeness to be part of its charm."

Thirdly, physicalism is far from self- evident. That's like saying that if you find a robot, with no trace of its creator, it's more self-evident to assume that the robot doesn't have a designer, which is of course illogical. It's the very nature of the world and its finite beings that suggests the self-evidence of a metaphysical creator.

Is this the watchmaker argument? That's bullocks. Seriously, the only reason we associate a robot with design, is because we've designed them. That is the problem, if you found an object that you've got no explanation for how it got there, would you invoke a being to place it there? Like if you found a watch, just lying around, your going to invoke a giant watchmaking machine, that created the watch, despite having never seen such a machine?

According to what I've gathered from you guys, the singularity just appears to be God without intellect. It doesn't exist in space and time, meaning it exists in immateriality (which sort of contradicts true physicalism), and is possibly responsible for an infinite set of universes, meaning it must have access to infinite potentiality, like God.

Research! Basically, the deal is 1 singularity per universe. Doesn't quite have infinite potentiality.

The only difference appears to be the intellect. That leaves us with the two propositions of whether 'thinking is being', and 'being is to be perceived', to determine whether the intellect is probable or not. That's probably for another debate though.

Well, a singularity is actually extremely simple, it's only got mass, charge and spin. God has a whole lot of other things, size, mass, strength, power, personality, intellect, speed, endurance, shape, dimensions, charge, spin etc. Big difference.

 

[Dre89]

Okay, Point being? We evolved the ability to perceive different objects because it was advantageous to.

I'm saying that couldn't have happened out of randomness billions of years after the world was formed, because it's essentially like saying you cause your own existence, which is of course contradictory. The reason why it's like that is because we would need to be able to perceive before we could develop perception, which is of course contradictory.

Actually, no. Were planets designed to orbit stars? Are you saying that everything is the way it is because it is designed that way? If so, I'd like to see your evidence.

Yes, they were designed to do so. Why do you think non-intellectual beigns retain such a high degree of consistency in their actions? Why do you think animals always stay in their ecosystems and never venture beyond them and disharmonise other ecosystems. Why do I even have to explain this.

The 'evidence' is self-evident. If there was no design for them, the actions of all beings would be completely random and disharmonised. The fact everything stays in synch and retains a very large degree of consistency and harmonisation suggests there was design.

Okay, but we evolved to perceive them so we could differentiate between them.

But again, there would have had to be a perception of those objects beforehand, to acknowledge that there is something to be perceived, and that there is differentiation between those objects.

Okay, that didn't really make any logical sense at all. The point is, that some things are much harder to perceive than others. Let's take neutrinos for example. They'll barely stop for anything, why would evolution favour any attempt to detect neutrinos? It won't, it's too costly wouldn't yield any benefits.

Certain things are only harder to perceive because of our make-up, ie. sense perception. Had we had other forms of perception other things wouldn't be hard to perceive.

That's why other animals can perceive things we can't, and we can perceive things they can't.

Also, why would we be able to perceive everything if we evolved? I don't see any reason for that. I mean, really, what sort of sensory organs would you need to have evolved to achieve that, and at what cost?

You're arguing that our perception developed as a result of our organs. I'm arguing the other way round, saying that evolution-wise, it would be more logical that our organs evolved to accommodate what there is to be perceived, therefore we would be able to perceive virtually everything in the physical world.

Additionally, your argument seems to stumble when we approach animals that can sense things that we don't. Like sharks that can detect electricity, insects and birds that can see different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, bats that have extremely sensitive hearing, or bloodhounds that have extremely good senses of smell. Is the stuff they can perceive designed to be perceived? Or is it just the stuff we can see?

This actually shows that things were designed to be perceived. If perception was a gradual evolution, the perception of later beings would outclass those of earlier beings in every aspect, when in fact, they don't.

Our eyes? Our nerves? The limitations of the human body?

Again, I'm saying those limitations are a result of what we were designed to be perceived.

So, why can't those universes be self-neccessary, like your god?

Because they're finite, and were created by a prior existence, meaning that they were dependant on something else. This is just basic metaphysics I really shouldn't have to explain this multiple times, it's not some technical jargon you can only understand if you've studied it.

Not really, what about Newtonian Mechanics? They're far from random, and they are intellect-less. Furthermore, explain to me the logic that brought you to that conclusion. I'd love to hear it.

Obviously I'm arguing that these intellect-less systems were set in motion by a designer that had an intellect. I really didn't think I actually needed to explain that.

Again, I can't believe I have to explain that randomness requires a total lack of consistency and disharmony. As soon as an object exhibits a degree of consistency in its work, it's working based on some form of principle, which is clearly not randomness. I'm arguing there's too much consistency and harmony in the world to suggest that and intellect-less being was the original mover, because the nature of the world suggests that original being was in fact working based of some principle or notion.

Uh, okay, lets say that the conditions that determined the laws of physics are gone now. Basically, even if it's random, you can't roll a six if you can't roll a die.

But if it was truly random, it would be perfectly possible that it could change, and that laws of physics could be altered.

Natural selection is more like certain, once life arises, it has to happen. So, no it didn't stem from randomness. Our universe is so large, that life has to happen somewhere, it just happened to happen here. Anthropic principle again!

Why does life have to happen in a randomly generated universe? And no, natural selection in physicalism never had to happen, nothing in physicalism ever had to happen. Even if given the circumstances natural selection arose is, it not arising would result in a disharmony and ultimate doom of the universe, it wouldn't matter at all, there would be no reason to stop that from allowin to happen.

Oh, but you've attacked the example but not the point? Why can't that possibility occur? Also, explain to me why the idea of the time loop is rubbish.

You seem to think that having intellect-less beings operate in a structured manner implies that the original being didn't need to have intellect, because we see here that intellect-less beings operate in a structured manner without intellect.

Obviously, the argument is that the only reason why it does so is because it was designed to by the intellectual original being. The fact that non-intellectual can't operate outside of this structure shows that they operate based on some form of design.

Uh, well, If you look in the bible he's got a pretty complex personality, he created the universe with intent, he knows everything, he's all powerful and he's all-loving. That's a pretty complex being. So, all that physics stuff that we don't know, that's really complex, he knew all along. Or what about the future, in all its shades of complexity? He knows that. It stands to reason that the more complex a brain is, the more powerful it is. His is infinitely powerful, it must display some complexity, more so than our brains. A multiverse on the other hand is actually rather simple. This seems to clear things up:

Again, a world of finite dependant entities without an infinite self-necessary entity to create them is not self-evident at all. if anything, it contradicts the scientific observation of natural entities and their properties.

Secondly, even if you take that religious account, which I don't necessarily, God would still be simple. His actions and motives, although appearing complex to us, are only a result of His perfection. In other words, He is simpple in that He is perfect, and He merely reveals himself through what are perfect acts, and what is perfection, in our world.

If hypothetically, God had also created a competely different seprate universe, His actions there would be the same as they are here, they would be what is perfection in that universe.

Therefore, according to religious theists, God is simple in that He simply acts in the way that perfection requires.

Is this the watchmaker argument? That's bullocks. Seriously, the only reason we associate a robot with design, is because we've designed them. That is the problem, if you found an object that you've got no explanation for how it got there, would you invoke a being to place it there? Like if you found a watch, just lying around, your going to invoke a giant watchmaking machine, that created the watch, despite having never seen such a machine?

No what I would conclude is that given the watch is comprised of finite objects that were created by prior actualities, the watch clearly couldn't have created itself, because it wasn't self-necessary. The same goes for the universe all beings within it.

Research! Basically, the deal is 1 singularity per universe. Doesn't quite have infinite potentiality.

So now you have multiple self-necessary beings?

Well, a singularity is actually extremely simple, it's only got mass, charge and spin. God has a whole lot of other things, size, mass, strength, power, personality, intellect, speed, endurance, shape, dimensions, charge, spin etc. Big difference.

What? Where on Earth did you get that? God has no shape size, speed etc. That would completely comprimise what makes Him God.

Over the course of this debate, I'm starting to believe you don't really completely understand the concept of God metaphysically enough to be having this debate.

I don't mean to be condescending or offensive, but a number of arguments you've made now stem of not really understanding the idea of God.

For example, if you believe a invisible pink unicorn is just as metaphysically justifiable as God is, (because you used that argument jokingly, but what is implied by that and the spaghetti monster argument suggests you don't understand what I'm arguing at all), then you don't understand enough to be having this debate.

The fact you even said God has size and shape implies you still think he exists in time and space, and that He's actually some kind of physical or material being that exists some place in a realm. That is miles away from what I'm talking about.

I understand now why you think God is complex, because you think it's just a very complex physical being imperceivable by sense perception. That's nowhere near what philosophers and theologians think what god is.

This whole time you've been saying God is just an uneccesary complication, but did you even understand I'm saying that the world couldn't exist without a God at all? I'm not arguing that atheism is possible, just that I think God exists because of religion etc. I'm saying that the finite and dependant nature of the world necessitates an infinite and self-necessary creator.

Also, I've shown why I think infinite time looping is rubbish in other debates, so there'd no point opening up another can of worms again.

We might as well stop now anyway, our conceptions of God are too different to make any progress.

Plus I don't really post that much anymore, because whilst I respect alot of DHers and their knowledge, I lost respect for the DH itself along time ago once I realised how biased it is and how condescending some of the DHers. It's laughable how undergraduates think they can look down other people at the same level of study as them.

And if anyone wants to challenge my claim that the DH is baised feel free, I have enough evidence to make my point. Considering that I get ganged up on in every debate, I've learned alot about the debaters and their respective skill levels.

 

[Mewter]

This is my own standpoint on things. Don't mix this up with Dre's argument, although they may be a little similar.

Okay, Point being? We evolved the ability to perceive different objects because it was advantageous to.

You would agree that X can't cause X, correct?
How would one develop the ability to perceive through evolution alone if you require perception to develop it in the first place?

Actually, no. Were planets designed to orbit stars? Are you saying that everything is the way it is because it is designed that way? If so, I'd like to see your evidence.

The universe itself is evidence. Gravity always follows a pattern, nuclear actions follow a pattern, and heck, even quantum physics follows a pattern! If the universe were truly undesigned, then everything would be random. As in not having a pattern.

Okay, but we evolved to perceive them so we could differentiate between them.

How would you evolve perception if you need to be able to perceive things in the first place. If things were not meant to be perceived, then you can't perceive them.

Okay, that didn't really make any logical sense at all. The point is, that some things are much harder to perceive than others. Let's take neutrinos for example. They'll barely stop for anything, why would evolution favour any attempt to detect neutrinos? It won't, it's too costly and wouldn't yield any benefits.

They weren't meant to be perceived, or else if they were, evolution would have allowed life to glimpse them by now.

Also, why would we be able to perceive everything if we evolved? I don't see any reason for that. I mean, really, what sort of sensory organs would you need to have evolved to achieve that, and at what cost?

As things evolve, they get more complex, right?
If you kept evolving and competing in nature, you would eventually reach a point where you had evolved to perceive everything. Dre has a point. You would only "evolve to accommodate what there is to be perceived." You wouldn't develop perception through evolution (since that requires you perceive first.)

Additionally, your argument seems to stumble when we approach animals that can sense things that we don't. Like sharks that can detect electricity, insects and birds that can see different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, bats that have extremely sensitive hearing, or bloodhounds that have extremely good senses of smell. Is the stuff they can perceive designed to be perceived? Or is it just the stuff we can see?

They have the ability to pick up on the perception offered by the objects around them, such as ultraviolet light. Also, if evolution brought about peception, like I said earlier, we would already be able to view everything there is that is meant to be perceived.

Our eyes? Our nerves? The limitations of the human body?

A fine example of why perception would not develop solely from evolution. We're limited. It's more logical in correspondence with evolution when you are able to later see what there is already to perceive.

So, why can't those universes be self-neccessary, like your god?

Because the universe is finite and physical and physical things cannot create themselves. It violates causality.

Not really, what about Newtonian Mechanics? They're far from random, and they are intellect-less. Furthermore, explain to me the logic that brought you to that conclusion. I'd love to hear it.

They would have been set in motion by a higher power then.

Natural selection is more like certain, once life arises, it has to happen. So, no it didn't stem from randomness. Our universe is so large, that life has to happen somewhere, it just happened to happen here. Anthropic principle again!

Oh, but you've attacked the example but not the point? Why can't that possibility occur? Also, explain to me why the idea of the time loop is rubbish.

Things can't cause themselves.

Uh, well, If you look in the bible he's got a pretty complex personality, he created the universe with intent, he knows everything, he's all powerful and he's all-loving. That's a pretty complex being. So, all that physics stuff that we don't know, that's really complex, he knew all along. Or what about the future, in all its shades of complexity? He knows that. It stands to reason that the more complex a brain is, the more powerful it is. His is infinitely powerful, it must display some complexity, more so than our brains. A multiverse on the other hand is actually rather simple. This seems to clear things up:

Ask anyone who has any notion of god, and you would get a pretty simple answer back. God would be the only automatically existing being that needs to set the big bang and other physical actions into place, since they possibly couldn't have caused themselves. A watch is highly complex and works, yes? Well, the universe is just like that.

Is this the watchmaker argument? That's bullocks. Seriously, the only reason we associate a robot with design, is because we've designed them. That is the problem, if you found an object that you've got no explanation for how it got there, would you invoke a being to place it there? Like if you found a watch, just lying around, your going to invoke a giant watchmaking machine, that created the watch, despite having never seen such a machine?

So you're just going to say that the processes that created you appeared randomly, with no design whatsoever? What about you? Without the laws of physics being how they are now, you wouldn't even exist!

Well, a singularity is actually extremely simple, it's only got mass, charge and spin. God has a whole lot of other things, size, mass, strength, power, personality, intellect, speed, endurance, shape, dimensions, charge, spin etc. Big difference.

A god would not be physical. You can't attribute any of those to a god, since those are universally bound characterizations and can't be defined outside of space-time. That's like saying a god can be eternal outside of space-time (which by the logic here, it would be.)

There's my argument against you.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm saying that couldn't have happened out of randomness billions of years after the world was formed, because it's essentially like saying you cause your own existence, which is of course contradictory. The reason why it's like that is because we would need to be able to perceive before we could develop perception, which is of course contradictory.

Okay, I don't understand what you're talking about, it seems like a non-argument. You don't seem to understand evolution. You're saying that evolution is random, and it is not. Furthermore, you're suggesting that it is impossible to evolve senses that can detect things, ie. perception.

Yes, they were designed to do so. Why do you think non-intellectual beigns retain such a high degree of consistency in their actions? Why do you think animals always stay in their ecosystems and never venture beyond them and disharmonise other ecosystems. Why do I even have to explain this.

Oh really, so you're entire argument is: It's consistent, therefore it must be designed. That just doesn't make sense. Firstly, I don't see any reason that consistency cannot occur without design.

The reasons animals never venture beyond their ecosystems, is: because they'll die outside of them. They have adapted themselves to a certain type of ecosystem, and not other types. This means that they'll do worse outside of them. Of course the exception to this rule is feral animals. And in fact I think this sort of thing actually occurs.

The 'evidence' is self-evident. If there was no design for them, the actions of all beings would be completely random and disharmonised. The fact everything stays in synch and retains a very large degree of consistency and harmonisation suggests there was design.

Anthropic principle. Also, this argument appears circular:

Premise 1: everything is designed and displays order.

Premise 2: There is nothing that displays order that isn't designed.

Therefore, because order cannot exist outside of design, everything must have been designed.

Explain to me why your argument differs.

Also, This seems to clear things up:

Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)

But again, there would have had to be a perception of those objects beforehand, to acknowledge that there is something to be perceived, and that there is differentiation between those objects.

Actually not really, the predecessors to our sensory organs, could have discovered a new type of perception completely out of the blue, from a random mutation. If this was beneficial, it would spread within the species. No, acknowledgement required.

Certain things are only harder to perceive because of our make-up, ie. sense perception. Had we had other forms of perception other things wouldn't be hard to perceive.

Exactly, I would say that the only reason we can perceive is because our sensory organs allow us to. These pick-up on physical and chemical differences in the universe.

You're arguing that our perception developed as a result of our organs. I'm arguing the other way round, saying that evolution-wise, it would be more logical that our organs evolved to accommodate what there is to be perceived, therefore we would be able to perceive virtually everything in the physical world.

Actually, I'm arguing that we can perceive because we have the sensory organs to do so, and that these organs detect certain things in the universe. What we can perceive is limited by our organs, not whether that certain things were designed to be perceived.

This actually shows that things were designed to be perceived. If perception was a gradual evolution, the perception of later beings would outclass those of earlier beings in every aspect, when in fact, they don't.

Actually we can perceive far better than the earliest forms of life, so I don't see what your argument is on about. We have evolved hearing, eyes etc. Single-celled organisms don't. Also, this argument is flawed for a number of reasons. Just because something evolved later doesn't necessarily mean it will perceive better. Basically, it all depends on what the organism needs to survive, if it doesn't need to perceive much, such as moss, it won't bother, if it does, it will. Simple as that.

Again, I'm saying those limitations are a result of what we were designed to be perceived.

I'm saying that these limitations are more likely a result of evolution. There is no good reason for us humans to evolve radio antennas because what would we detect? Or what about X-ray vision, we'd have serious trouble detecting that, and what would it yield? The point is, not that these things aren't designed to be perceived, it's theoretically possible to perceive such things, but it's extremely unlikely to occur in practice.

Because they're finite, and were created by a prior existence, meaning that they were dependant on something else. This is just basic metaphysics I really shouldn't have to explain this multiple times, it's not some technical jargon you can only understand if you've studied it.

Oh, so they must have been created by a prior existence? Who says? Why can't they be self-necessary if they were infinite?

Obviously I'm arguing that these intellect-less systems were set in motion by a designer that had an intellect. I really didn't think I actually needed to explain that.

I know. The point is, that whenever I show an example of consistency, you'll just say it's designed.

Again, I can't believe I have to explain that randomness requires a total lack of consistency and disharmony. As soon as an object exhibits a degree of consistency in its work, it's working based on some form of principle, which is clearly not randomness. I'm arguing there's too much consistency and harmony in the world to suggest that and intellect-less being was the original mover, because the nature of the world suggests that original being was in fact working based of some principle or notion.

Okay, I really don't see your point. Your saying that everything is designed because it shows consistency. This is a non-sequitor. Does not follow.

But if it was truly random, it would be perfectly possible that it could change, and that laws of physics could be altered.

Ah but it isn't. See our universe today is governed by the laws of physics. These laws seem to have arisen in the Big Bang. We are not in a Big Bang, and thus the conditions where the laws of physics can arise or change don't exist any more.

Why does life have to happen in a randomly generated universe? And no, natural selection in physicalism never had to happen, nothing in physicalism ever had to happen. Even if given the circumstances natural selection arose is, it not arising would result in a disharmony and ultimate doom of the universe, it wouldn't matter at all, there would be no reason to stop that from allowin to happen.

Life has (actually, has is a bit strong) to arise in our universe because it is so big. There are so many stars and planets in the universe, that life has to arise somewhere. If it's possible. We are proof that it is possible, so it'll probably appear somewhere else.

Yeah, we may exist in a precarious universe. So?

You seem to think that having intellect-less beings operate in a structured manner implies that the original being didn't need to have intellect, because we see here that intellect-less beings operate in a structured manner without intellect.

Yes. The laws of physics may have arrived at random, but now the operate with serious structure. The reason they seem so synergistic, and vital to our survival, is because they are. If they weren't like this, we wouldn't be here. Thus, we can only exist in a universe where these laws apply. It doesn't matter how unlikely that these laws arose, the fact is they did. It's like winning a lottery, yes the odds were against you, but you still won. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here talking about it!

Obviously, the argument is that the only reason why it does so is because it was designed to by the intellectual original being. The fact that non-intellectual can't operate outside of this structure shows that they operate based on some form of design.

No, it's a testament to how powerful the laws of physics are. It's not proven that you can't have consistency without design, but you act like it is. I would like to see your evidence.

Again, a world of finite dependant entities without an infinite self-necessary entity to create them is not self-evident at all. if anything, it contradicts the scientific observation of natural entities and their properties.

Well, yeah but multiverse. It seems pretty self-necessary to me. A single self-necessary object made up of component parts, that change. It's infinite.

Secondly, even if you take that religious account, which I don't necessarily, God would still be simple. His actions and motives, although appearing complex to us, are only a result of His perfection. In other words, He is simpple in that He is perfect, and He merely reveals himself through what are perfect acts, and what is perfection, in our world.

I'm not even going to argue against that. Why? because I disagree with that on huge number of levels.

No what I would conclude is that given the watch is comprised of finite objects that were created by prior actualities, the watch clearly couldn't have created itself, because it wasn't self-necessary. The same goes for the universe all beings within it.

How do you know? There is no evidence of the universe being created, apart from the dubious stuff here, that isn't accepted into peer-reviewed science journals. The oscillating universe seems to be self-necessary, as does the multiverse. We've seen people make watches, but we haven't seen gods make universes. Entirely different kettle of fish.

So now you have multiple self-necessary beings?

What's wrong with that? I think you may have touched on it in another argument, but I didn't really see why it was in any way conclusive, especially if the self-necessary beings don't interact with each other.

What? Where on Earth did you get that? God has no shape size, speed etc. That would completely comprimise what makes Him God.

Well, I assumed that Jesus was your god.

Over the course of this debate, I'm starting to believe you don't really completely understand the concept of God metaphysically enough to be having this debate.

I don't mean to be condescending or offensive, but a number of arguments you've made now stem of not really understanding the idea of God.

The feeling is mutual.

For example, if you believe a invisible pink unicorn is just as metaphysically justifiable as God is, (because you used that argument jokingly, but what is implied by that and the spaghetti monster argument suggests you don't understand what I'm arguing at all), then you don't understand enough to be having this debate.

That really makes me feel great!

The fact you even said God has size and shape implies you still think he exists in time and space, and that He's actually some kind of physical or material being that exists some place in a realm. That is miles away from what I'm talking about.

Well, Jesus seemed to exist in time and space.

I understand now why you think God is complex, because you think it's just a very complex physical being imperceivable by sense perception. That's nowhere near what philosophers and theologians think what god is.

This whole time you've been saying God is just an uneccesary complication, but did you even understand I'm saying that the world couldn't exist without a God at all? I'm not arguing that atheism is possible, just that I think God exists because of religion etc. I'm saying that the finite and dependant nature of the world necessitates an infinite and self-necessary creator.

Okay, but it seems rather unnecessary. The universe and the big-bang need no god involved with them. Furthermore, honestly, I'm going to have to say that we don't know about the origin of the universe, and that doesn't prove anything. Also, a causal explanation to the universe breaks down in the absence of time.

Also, I've shown why I think infinite time looping is rubbish in other debates, so there'd no point opening up another can of worms again.

Okay, Mewter seems to have explained why he thinks it's rubbish.

We might as well stop now anyway, our conceptions of God are too different to make any progress.

Yeah, fair enough.

Plus I don't really post that much anymore, because whilst I respect alot of DHers and their knowledge, I lost respect for the DH itself along time ago once I realised how biased it is and how condescending some of the DHers. It's laughable how undergraduates think they can look down other people at the same level of study as them.

Wow... Wow... I think someone's not going to like hearing that.

Also, I think we may as well leave this one, we don't really seem to be getting anywhere. Also, I'll respond to Mewter later, I'm slightly busy at the moment.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

This is my own standpoint on things. Don't mix this up with Dre's argument, although they may be a little similar.

Actually, I think it's pretty much the same. Some of the sentences feel copy-pasted and edited.

You would agree that X can't cause X, correct?
How would one develop the ability to perceive through evolution alone if you require perception to develop it in the first place?

Yeah, but X didn't cause X - X was caused by a random mutation. This is addressed in my previous post somewhere.

The universe itself is evidence. Gravity always follows a pattern, nuclear actions follow a pattern, and heck, even quantum physics follows a pattern! If the universe were truly undesigned, then everything would be random. As in not having a pattern.

No. The fact that everything follows a pattern doesn't mean that it is designed. If you wish to assert that it does, provide more evidence, as opposed to just asserting that it'd be random without design.

Also, if the universe was designed to harbour us, why is it so big? Why do we need all that stuff on the other side of the cosmos to keep us alive? Why is the Earth almost entirely inhospitable? Why is space deadly? Why is the Electroweak force of almost no significance to us?

The doesn't look very well designed to me. To say that it is fine-tuned for our existence, is similar to claiming a boulder the size of a house, is fine-tuned to contain iron, if it contains one atom of iron. Something like that, I'm not sure on the maths of course, but it's similar to that. It is a joke!

How would you evolve perception if you need to be able to perceive things in the first place. If things were not meant to be perceived, then you can't perceive them.

Yeah, but there's no actually evidence of intent. It's just that we perceive certain things and not other things. This is due to evolution, among other things, and I really don't want to have to explain that again.

They weren't meant to be perceived, or else if they were, evolution would have allowed life to glimpse them by now.

Evolution would have allowed them to glimpse such things, but it wasn't really of any use, and such mutation being of no use, and being a drawback (yes radio antenna are drawbacks thank you very much!) would have been removed from the gene-pool.

As things evolve, they get more complex, right?

No. They evolve to suit their environment better.

If you kept evolving and competing in nature, you would eventually reach a point where you had evolved to perceive everything. Dre has a point. You would only "evolve to accommodate what there is to be perceived." You wouldn't develop perception through evolution (since that requires you perceive first.)

No, that's not true. Evolution only produces favourable traits to the organisms that bear them. The sensory organs required to perceive everything would require tonnes of energy to maintain and bring little benefit. Therefore, evolution wouldn't produce such things. You would only evolve to perceive that which it is advantageous to perceive.

Furthermore, your last sentence doesn't make sense, it's saying you must have perception to produce perception. Sounds like rubbish to me! After all, random mutation and natural selection have enabled organisms to see, why can't they do it for another type of perception.

A fine example of why perception would not develop solely from evolution. We're limited. It's more logical in correspondence with evolution when you are able to later see what there is already to perceive.

See, above somewhere.

Because the universe is finite and physical and physical things cannot create themselves. It violates causality.

The multiverse is infinite.

They would have been set in motion by a higher power then.

That's what you'll say about everything that displays consistency without intellect.

Things can't cause themselves.

Dre's god seems to be able to. Why not a time-loop?

Ask anyone who has any notion of god, and you would get a pretty simple answer back. God would be the only automatically existing being that needs to set the big bang and other physical actions into place, since they possibly couldn't have caused themselves. A watch is highly complex and works, yes? Well, the universe is just like that.

See my earlier post.

So you're just going to say that the processes that created you appeared randomly, with no design whatsoever? What about you? Without the laws of physics being how they are now, you wouldn't even exist!

Yep, I said it! The laws of physics may have appeared randomly, as did the other processes that caused me. So? It's improbable, yes, but so is winning a lottery, and it happens. This is an example of that sort of thing occurring. Anthropic Principle.

A god would not be physical. You can't attribute any of those to a god, since those are universally bound characterizations and can't be defined outside of space-time. That's like saying a god can be eternal outside of space-time (which by the logic here, it would be.)

Well, I can attribute all of those to Jesus, which seems to be Dre's god.

There's my argument against you.

It felt a lot clearer than Dre's, and consequently, a lot easier to rebut.

 

[Mewter]

Yeah, but X didn't cause X - X was caused by a random mutation. This is addressed in my previous post somewhere.

Then how would you perceive something that isn't meant to be perceived?

Also, if the universe was designed to harbour us, why is it so big? Why do we need all that stuff on the other side of the cosmos to keep us alive? Why is the Earth almost entirely inhospitable? Why is space deadly? Why is the Electroweak force of almost no significance to us?

Well obviously it's got to produce life somewhere if we're in it. Anthropic Principle.
As for the stuff on the other side of the cosmos, that's just the places where life can't develop.
Earth seems pretty lively to me.
Space is deadly because life can't live there (tautology.)
The electroweak force is "of almost no significance to us because life simply doesn't need it. How would you even survive at the temperatures needed to sustain it, either?

The doesn't look very well designed to me. To say that it is fine-tuned for our existence, is similar to claiming a boulder the size of a house, is fine-tuned to contain iron, if it contains one atom of iron. Something like that, I'm not sure on the maths of course, but it's similar to that. It is a joke!

That argument would work if we were sure other universes existed, like multiple boulders do. If there were multiple boulders, it would make sense to say it was a coincidence. But as of now, no multiverse has been proven.
And plus, using the anthropic principle, one can say this universe can only exist if we are in it. That seems pretty fine-tuned.Evolution would have allowed them to glimpse such things, but it wasn't really of any use, and such mutation being of no use, and being a drawback (yes radio antenna are drawbacks thank you very much!) would have been removed from the gene-pool.

No. They evolve to suit their environment better.

Then explain how we are more complex than bacteria. If we are using the theory of evolution, then we evolved, yes (and from a common ancestor?) It seems to me that every intermediate species has grown more complex as they evolve. In fact, that's what most schools teach these days.

No, that's not true. Evolution only produces favourable traits to the organisms that bear them. The sensory organs required to perceive everything would require tonnes of energy to maintain and bring little benefit. Therefore, evolution wouldn't produce such things. You would only evolve to perceive that which it is advantageous to perceive.

Or you would evolve to perceive what was created to be perceived, since nothing else was created to be perceived and is thus not perceivable.

The multiverse is infinite.

How do you know that a multiverse exists? You're asserting that it exists for your argument, so the burden of proof is on you.

Dre's god seems to be able to. Why not a time-loop?

Because things can't cause themselves.

Yep, I said it! The laws of physics may have appeared randomly, as did the other processes that caused me. So? It's improbable, yes, but so is winning a lottery, and it happens. This is an example of that sort of thing occurring. Anthropic Principle.

I can use the Anthropic Principle to make an argument for a higher power though.

I'm pretty tired right now, so my answers are really not explained well. Just ask me if you have any concerns with them and I'll expand on what I said.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Then how would you perceive something that isn't meant to be perceived?

Where does meant come into this? You act as if it were a fact, and it is not.

Well obviously it's got to produce life somewhere if we're in it. Anthropic Principle.

Exactly, but why an all-knowing all-powerful god, create a universe far bigger than it's intended purpose?

As for the stuff on the other side of the cosmos, that's just the places where life can't develop.

It's redundant, if the purpose of the universe was to harbour us. It looks like a bad design.

Earth seems pretty lively to me.

What would you say about all the stuff below the crust? That's dead.

Space is deadly because life can't live there (tautology.)

But if the universe was designed to harbour us, why would god make it mostly deadly? It sounds stupid.

The electroweak force is "of almost no significance to us because life simply doesn't need it. How would you even survive at the temperatures needed to sustain it, either?

It points to bad design. The whole universe, if it had a purpose, looks terribly designed. It seems incoherent, and just purposeless.

That argument would work if we were sure other universes existed, like multiple boulders do. If there were multiple boulders, it would make sense to say it was a coincidence. But as of now, no multiverse has been proven.

Neither has God. Additionally, it does not appear fine-tuned for our existence. It appears like the work of random chance.

And plus, using the anthropic principle, one can say this universe can only exist if we are in it.

Explain, I don't understand.

Then explain how we are more complex than bacteria. If we are using the theory of evolution, then we evolved, yes (and from a common ancestor?) It seems to me that every intermediate species has grown more complex as they evolve. In fact, that's what most schools teach these days.

In some cases, it's possible to evolve to suit your environment better by becoming more complex. We are one of those cases.

Or you would evolve to perceive what was created to be perceived, since nothing else was created to be perceived and is thus not perceivable.

Non-sequitor! Also, I don't understand how you know everything is designed to be perceived.

How do you know that a multiverse exists? You're asserting that it exists for your argument, so the burden of proof is on you.

I'm saying that it is a better solution than god. Not that it exists.

Because things can't cause themselves.

Okay, I guess that rules your god out then....

I can use the Anthropic Principle to make an argument for a higher power though.

I'll need a bit of explanation on that.

I'm pretty tired right now, so my answers are really not explained well. Just ask me if you have any concerns with them and I'll expand on what I said.

Okay, that's fine with me.

 

[Mewter]

Where does meant come into this? You act as if it were a fact, and it is not.

The rest of my post will take care of this.

Exactly, but why an all-knowing all-powerful god, create a universe far bigger than it's intended purpose?

See blue asterisk.

It's redundant, if the purpose of the universe was to harbour us. It looks like a bad design.

See blue asterisk.

But if the universe was designed to harbour us, why would god make it mostly deadly? It sounds stupid.

*I never said it was designed to harbor us to the full extent of the universe.

It points to bad design. The whole universe, if it had a purpose, looks terribly designed. It seems incoherent, and just purposeless.

But the mechanisms by the universe work are coherent.

Explain, I don't understand.

See the red asterisks.


In some cases, it's possible to evolve to suit your environment better by becoming more complex. We are one of those cases.

Non-sequitor! Also, I don't understand how you know everything is designed to be perceived.

It's not a non sequitor. If I simply change the order of the words from "A happens since B is in effect" to "If B then A", then we get this:
"If nothing else was created to be perceived and is thus not perceivable, then you would have to evolve to perceive what was created to be perceived."
Basically, if you aren't able to evolve to perceive 40% of something and it's an impossibility, then you would by default evolve to only perceive the other 60% (as a limit.)
That's my general message.

As for the second part, I never said everything was designed to be perceived. In fact, I said that you could only evolve to perceive what was meant to be perceived. I never said anything about "everything is designed to be perceived." If everything was designed to be perceived, then we would be consciously bathing in AM and FM radio signals. Since we're not, we know that they weren't meant to be perceived.
A better way of phrasing that question would have been "I don't understand how you know things were designed with the (preset) ability to perceive in mind."

I'm saying that it is a better solution than god. Not that it exists.

A god would be self-necessary, not dependent on any other forms of information. My reply are in the asterisks.

I'll need a bit of explanation on that.

*Alright, so the anthropic principle states that we're here because this is the only place we could have possibly developed, correct?
Then would I also be correct in saying this universe requires us in order to be this universe, and the chance of us being brought about is low?
So the chance of this universe possessing life is low, which must mean the chances of this universe existing is low because it depends on life being present.
*If this (certain, specific) universe exists then, and the chances for that are extremely low (including all the conditions for us exist,) wouldn't that at least suggest that all of its mechanisms are fine-tuned or intelligently tweaked in order for that to work?

Okay, that's fine with me.

Alright.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

*I never said it was designed to harbor us to the full extent of the universe.

Yes, but it appears as if the design were poor, if at all present, which I'm arguing it isn't.

But the mechanisms by the universe work are coherent.

Are they? Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity don't seem to be coherent together.

It's not a non sequitor. If I simply change the order of the words from "A happens since B is in effect" to "If B then A", then we get this:
"If nothing else was created to be perceived and is thus not perceivable, then you would have to evolve to perceive what was created to be perceived.

Basically, if you aren't able to evolve to perceive 40% of something and it's an impossibility, then you would by default evolve to only perceive the other 60% (as a limit.)
That's my general message."

But, how do you know everything that we can be perceive, was created to be be perceived?

As for the second part, I never said everything was designed to be perceived. In fact, I said that you could only evolve to perceive what was meant to be perceived. I never said anything about "everything is designed to be perceived." If everything was designed to be perceived, then we would be consciously bathing in AM and FM radio signals. Since we're not, we know that they weren't meant to be perceived.
A better way of phrasing that question would have been "I don't understand how you know things were designed with the (preset) ability to perceive in mind."

Okay, fine I kinda misspoke. Basically, I meant: how do you know that everything that we perceive was designed with that purpose in mind?

A god would be self-necessary, not dependent on any other forms of information. My reply are in the asterisks.

Okay, I think we've debated a self-necessary god enough...

*Alright, so the anthropic principle states that we're here because this is the only place we could have possibly developed, correct?

Indeed.

Then would I also be correct in saying this universe requires us in order to be this universe, and the chance of us being brought about is low?
So the chance of this universe possessing life is low, which must mean the chances of this universe existing is low because it depends on life being present.
*If this (certain, specific) universe exists then, and the chances for that are extremely low (including all the conditions for us exist,) wouldn't that at least suggest that all of its mechanisms are fine-tuned or intelligently tweaked in order for that to work?

Not necessarily, because it could be just a coincidence. The only reason that this universe exists, is because it is the way it is. It doesn't matter how improbable its formation may have been, but it must have happened, because we're here talking about it. That is the Anthropic Principle. Basically, we're lucky as hell.

 

[Dre89]

Ok Bob there's alot of basic facts about the concept of God you don't seem to understand-

Fristly, you can't have multiple self-necessary beings, because then they are not self-necessary, they would be dependant on each other. Once you have multiple beings, there needed to be the concept of existence beforehand for multiple existences to be actual. That's why monotheism is so logical, because the essence of God is existence itself.

Secondly, Jesus is only the human form of God. God existed outside of time and space before He allegedly came down in the form of Jesus.

If you actually think big bang and evolution means we don't need a God then you've automatically lost this debate. The God issue is metaphysical, meaning it comes before big bang and evolution. The God argument is not suppsoed to to take the place of big bang, its supposed to be what created the big bang. The cause of the big bang, or the world, is not self-evident, hence where the god debate comes from.

When Mewter asked how X can cause itself, why on Earth did you say 'well Dre's god can, so why can't X?'? What exactly is your understanding of the notion of God? God didn't cause Hismelf, He always existed, He is eternal, I thought that was pretty straightforward.

There's plenty more you've said that I disagree with but it's pointless now because unfortunately you don't have an adequate understanding of the metaphysics of God.

This isn't just my personal notion of God, this is the standard idea of the monotheistic God, which is the one most backed by reason and not faith alone.

And for the record Bob, the DH is so baised it's not funny. If anyone wants to challenge me on this I'm happy to present my evidence.

 

[CRASHiC]

Hello. I feel like testin the baiters, pokin my stick in for a jerk or two.


Draw your attention to this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U

Here he brings up the problem with freewill that exist within physics. How does htis carry over into other sciences?

Well the idea of consciousness is the most perplexing subject in neuroscience today, so much so that it flows comfortably into the cup of philosophy. Thoughts are connected to the idea of consciousness—considered to be a part of consciousness. However there have been volumes written just on what consciousness is let alone how it arises in the brain. If we don't really know what it actually means to be conscious we can't isolate (if indeed it can be isolated) what structures that give rise to it.
The neocortex, the outermost layer or 'rind' of the brain, is thought to play a large role in consciousness. If you image a person using fMRI or MEG (magnetoencephalography) there will be a constant 'background noise' running through the cerebral cortex which is thought to be related to the sub-conscious. When enough neurones in an area fire in unison or in a pattern though excitatory feedback loops, temporal and spacial summation, etc. a thought is believed to materialise. It was shown that neurones fire a few milisecons before a decision enters the conscious mind, showing that the brain has made the decision before the mind and challenging preconceived notions of free will.

So, a few questions arise here.

1. Can We Have Free Will?
2. Can we hold individuals responsible for their actions IF it is only a natural elements.
3. If not, should we lock away those with repeated behavior as they clearly show to be geared to make the same decision several times?

The original work I'm citing is here. The abstract says 'up to 10 s' which I think has been challenged however I think it has been reproduced a number of times if I remember correctly. The delay is much more likely in the milliseconds. The accuracy of these tests are never perfect, in fact the very methods of using fMRI imaging in research have been challenged over the years

So, anyone wanna give this a pull or two?

 

[Sieguest]

Hello. I feel like testin the baiters, pokin my stick in for a jerk or two.


Draw your attention to this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U

Here he brings up the problem with freewill that exist within physics. How does htis carry over into other sciences?

Well the idea of consciousness is the most perplexing subject in neuroscience today, so much so that it flows comfortably into the cup of philosophy. Thoughts are connected to the idea of consciousness—considered to be a part of consciousness. However there have been volumes written just on what consciousness is let alone how it arises in the brain. If we don't really know what it actually means to be conscious we can't isolate (if indeed it can be isolated) what structures that give rise to it.
The neocortex, the outermost layer or 'rind' of the brain, is thought to play a large role in consciousness. If you image a person using fMRI or MEG (magnetoencephalography) there will be a constant 'background noise' running through the cerebral cortex which is thought to be related to the sub-conscious. When enough neurones in an area fire in unison or in a pattern though excitatory feedback loops, temporal and spacial summation, etc. a thought is believed to materialise.

I'll give this a shot...

1. Can We Have Free Will?

I do not think we have free will as the idea of free will implies that what ever happens is not affected by any external circumstance, but I find that it is impossible to be free of any external circumstance. As most people make a choice due from previous choices, also knowing how every action has a consequence and this consequence leads to another action, then there is always an external circumstance factoring into an action whether it is acknowledged or not. Showing lack of free will.

It was shown that neurones fire a few miliseconds before a decision enters the conscious mind, showing that the brain has made the decision before the mind and challenging preconceived notions of free will.

I do not agree that this explanation actually challenges free will though. The brain carries out thinking correct? And in the case of brain and consciousness, thought precedes action. And consciousness is a state achieved by the action of becoming conscious. So the fact the neurons fire before the mind becomes conscious of the decision is plausible. But the thought which triggers the neurons firing still belongs to the owner of that thought. So without the previous paragraph I stated above, this explanation couldn't challenge the idea that we have free will.

2. Can we hold individuals responsible for their actions IF it is only a natural elements.

While I think we may not have free will, I do think we have free reign of thought. And as thought precedes action, then I do believe that the individual should be held responsible for their actions as they must've thought of committing the action before actually doing it.

3. If not, should we lock away those with repeated behavior as they clearly show to be geared to make the same decision several times?

If I didn't think they were responsible for their actions, I would still believe that one should be locked away if his/her actions negatively impact the people, in order to look out for the safety of the people.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Ok Bob there's alot of basic facts about the concept of God you don't seem to understand-

Fristly, you can't have multiple self-necessary beings, because then they are not self-necessary, they would be dependant on each other. Once you have multiple beings, there needed to be the concept of existence beforehand for multiple existences to be actual. That's why monotheism is so logical, because the essence of God is existence itself.

Why do they have to be dependent on each other?

Secondly, Jesus is only the human form of God. God existed outside of time and space before He allegedly came down in the form of Jesus.

Yes, but that does mean that at one point he did have those traits that I described.

If you actually think big bang and evolution means we don't need a God then you've automatically lost this debate. The God issue is metaphysical, meaning it comes before big bang and evolution. The God argument is not suppsoed to to take the place of big bang, its supposed to be what created the big bang. The cause of the big bang, or the world, is not self-evident, hence where the god debate comes from.

I'm saying that there is no reason for a god, not because of the Big Bang or Evolution, but because there is no evidence for him in my opinion and that he is unnecessary. In my opinion of course.

When Mewter asked how X can cause itself, why on Earth did you say 'well Dre's god can, so why can't X?'? What exactly is your understanding of the notion of God? God didn't cause Hismelf, He always existed, He is eternal, I thought that was pretty straightforward.

Why couldn't the time-loop always exist, like your god?

There's plenty more you've said that I disagree with but it's pointless now because unfortunately you don't have an adequate understanding of the metaphysics of God.

That sounded rather condescending but, I can understand where it seems to be coming from. Your understanding of a number of scientific fields appears to be lacking.

This isn't just my personal notion of God, this is the standard idea of the monotheistic God, which is the one most backed by reason and not faith alone.

Or so you say... But, I can't really be bothered to challenge that.

And for the record Bob, the DH is so baised it's not funny. If anyone wants to challenge me on this I'm happy to present my evidence.

Okay, I'm just saying that it isn't really that nice a thing to say. Furthermore, it isn't really that biased in my possibly biased opinion.

 

[Sieguest]

I hope you all don't mind me putting in my two cents worth...

Why do they have to be dependent on each other?

Because they would have to harmonize to create what we have now.
What would time be without space?
What would water be without land?
What would war be without peace?

That is how multiple self-necessary beings is a fallacy in itself. One self necessary being encompasses all of this, and fulfills what comprises a "self-necessary" entity.

Yes, but that does mean that at one point he did have those traits that I described.

I've read back some, and I think I've figured what you're driving at, correct me if I'm wrong.
So using the idea of Jesus being God on Earth, you attempt to establish that God has physical properties. This may seem sound, but one must remember that Jesus came to being through physical means (child birth) and God endowed him with his power. As such, Jesus on earth couldn't display any physical component of God, only of himself. Then seeing all of the supernatural feats Jesus did during his time on Earth is a display of God's ability. This all then goes to retain the idea that God is limitless.

I'm saying that there is no reason for a god, not because of the Big Bang or Evolution, but because there is no evidence for him in my opinion and that he is unnecessary. In my opinion of course.

Then again, is there any evidence that leads to God not existing? Saying God is unnecessary could be in another's mindset interchangeable with saying the big bang is unnecessary. Both entities don't have anything to prove they exist or that they don't exist, and both extremes credit their respective source as the creator of the universe. A harmonization of the two ideas could go along the lines of God starting the big bang and we go from there. However, I feel this all boils down to speculation and very personal opinion, so I'll not push this.

Why couldn't the time-loop always exist, like your god?

I wouldn't find a time-loop plausible. A time loop implies that eventually we return to a starting point (we return to the point of creation) and then have a direct recreation of the first cycle. However, this is not possible because that means that somehow there will have to be an end to the universe as we know it (they say the sun will eventually become a red giant and swallow up the earth, but that only accounts for four planets there is nothing to endanger the other planets other than a supernova when the sun ends its life cycle and even then there is the rest of the ever expanding universe a point at which it can't be tampered with.), and somehow have it condensed to the point of beginning. This also means the concept of destroying time so as to restart it,and that is an impossibility. An asymptomatic approach of time would make more sense, and then there is the point of it strictly being an entity that we cannot prove exists nor doesn't exists and is interchangeable with whatever deity of choice you wish to follow as I've stated above.

Okay, I'm just saying that it isn't really that nice a thing to say. Furthermore, it isn't really that biased in my possibly biased opinion.

Bleh, I jumped the gun...

 

[Dre89]

Why do they have to be dependent on each other?

Because they exist in harmony with each other. The essence of the original being would be existence itself, and it's this essence of existence itself which allows for the acknowledgement of the self and the creation of other beings. That's why theists say 'God is being', He is existence, multiple beings can't be responsible for existence itself, because other beings would exist independently of them.

Yes, but that does mean that at one point he did have those traits that I described.

I'm not even Christian, but sending Himself down as human was a way of getting a message across and opening the gates to heaven. Assuming a physical form isn't significant at all in this debate, because I wasn't arguing for Christianity, just the existence of an original being with infinite potentiality and an intellect.

I'm saying that there is no reason for a god, not because of the Big Bang or Evolution, but because there is no evidence for him in my opinion and that he is unnecessary. In my opinion of course.

If you understood my argument, you would know I've been arguing that the nature of the world necessitates an infinite and self-necessary being. I'm saying the evidence for God is in the nature of the universe.

The fact that you actually thought big bang means we don't need God suggests you haven't bothered developing a metaphysical justification for how big bang could have come about without a God, meaning that if you are atheist, you aren't really justified in that belief.

You say there is no evidence for God, where is the evidence that the world could have been created without a God? Every entity in the world is finite and caused by a prior one, so where exactly is the evidence that the world could be created without an infinite self-necessary one?

Saying there is no evidence of God therefore He doesn't exist is like saying that because there is no evidence of the robot's creator the robot doesn't have a creator and it created itself. The very nature of the robot (being comprised of finite and dependant parts, just like the universe) suggests that it was created.

Why couldn't the time-loop always exist, like your god?

Because a time loop is logically implausible, God isn't. Atheists themselves accept that God is logically plausible, they just believe it's not necessary. The problem of infinite regress has been shown time and time again. It's pretty long to go into, so if you want me to explain it (I've already done it like five times on this board already) let me know.

That sounded rather condescending but, I can understand where it seems to be coming from. Your understanding of a number of scientific fields appears to be lacking.

That just shows you haven't really understood what I've been arguing this whole time....

I don't argue against big bang, I would need scientific knowledge for that, I argue you need God for it. Whether you need God for big bang or not is not a scientific issue, it's a metaphysical one, and science has no proofs for any metaphysical issues, hence why atheism requires philosophical thought, not that of the scientific kind.

The only time I ever directly argued against big bang/evo was when I used my intelligent design from humanity argument in which I borrowed from Aristotle. The premises in that argument were based on falsifiable observations of nature, which is what science does. So this wasn't just metaphysical garbage that has no authority over the next metaphysical theory, I actually had falsifiable reasons for why my argument was right and others weren't.

So again, the fact you think my lack of scientific knowledge actually affected my debating in this thread shows that either you didn't understand what I was arguing at all, or you don't really understand the metaphysics of the god debate.

Or so you say... But, I can't really be bothered to challenge that.

All I'm saying is that when debating about God, the stuff I've said about God is already assumed, that's why I was so surprised when you didn't really understand any of it.

Okay, I'm just saying that it isn't really that nice a thing to say. Furthermore, it isn't really that biased in my possibly biased opinion.

It's not a matter of whether your atheist or Christian, it's matter of what you argue, not how good you are at it. You just have to argue from politics or science and you'll get in eventually.

Since I've debated nearly every currently active memeber, I know the debating abilities of alot of people, and for such an overly selective board, there's a very large gap in the levels of certain debaters. What I noticed though is that they all seem to argue the same general things, just at very different skill levels, but it doesn't seem to matter to the DH as long as you argue what they like.

This isn't just my opinion, I've had other people tell me this too, and I've had people tell me the DH is just full of elitists who aren't really good at the debating- their words not mine, I actually think the debating here is pretty good, but not good enough to justify the strict admsision process.

Here's an example of how baised the DH is- when I first came here, I was told by CK not to use the cosmological argument, because it's 'laughable at best', and I was told by someone else not to argue against evolution because I would be wrong. That just shows how open the DH is to different ideas- the fact they told me not to take those paths shows they obviously wouldn't accept someone who does use them, otherwise they would be promoting people to argue different ideas.

It's pretty evident it's what you argue not how you argue, because considering I refence the greatest philosopher's in the western world, it's not as if I get dscriminated against because I don't debate well, because I use the people who put those ideas across best.

So I'd like to see someone tell me the DH is not biased after that.

 

[Mewter]

Why do they have to be dependent on each other?

Bob Jane, just one self-necessary being would have to provide the essence of existence. If you had multiple automatically existing entities, then each one would take a piece of the existence pie so to speak. What would happen then? They would all be dependent on each other of course, and we know nothing from inside a dependent system can start itself to get the cycle moving!

I'm saying that there is no reason for a god, not because of the Big Bang or Evolution, but because there is no evidence for him in my opinion and that he is unnecessary. In my opinion of course.

The universe is highly fine-tuned, which is evidence enough for a god's existence. Again, I'm using the Anthropic Principle against you.

Plus, we know that time can't go back forever, because an infinite amount of things would have had to happen to cause the present day status of things.

Anyways, if things had existed forever (Steady-State theory), then starlight would be flooding our skies from practically every conceivable point in the universe (that is, if you want scientific points to back up my argument.)

Plus the constant expansion of space in conjunction with an everlasting universe would (in order to achieve today's state) have to create matter constantly to keep the universe roughly uniform for eternity.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

Anyways, back on track, and back onto the subject of the big bang!

A godless (god being a metaphysical "thing" that enabled existence) big bang says that nothing caused the big bang, but it just began itself. That would be fine if we knew space-time was self-necessitating, but it isn't. You really have no backing evidence behind your claim that the universe requires no cause.

In fact, it appears that the universe would require a prior cause, since all evidence within it points toward everything having causation. The evidence against your claim is pretty hefty.

Why couldn't the time-loop always exist, like your god?

A can't cause B to cause A in order for the cycle to start. Just like how A can't cause A because that requires itself to be around to cause itself.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob Jane, just one self-necessary being would have to provide the essence of existence. If you had multiple automatically existing entities, then each one would take a piece of the existence pie so to speak. What would happen then? They would all be dependent on each other of course, and we know nothing from inside a dependent system can start itself to get the cycle moving!

Yeah, exactly, and that would mean that your god would be powerless. He has no reference point to base his timing off, and thus he would have created the universe an infinite amount of time ago, and therefore the universe as we know it, would have already come and gone.

The universe is highly fine-tuned, which is evidence enough for a god's existence. Again, I'm using the Anthropic Principle against you.

Honestly, it isn't. Just because we got lucky with the cosmic lottery, doesn't mean it was rigged. Really, just because the laws of the universe allow for our existence, doesn't mean that god was involved in the process of creating such laws. I want to see the evidence that god was involved in this process.

Plus, we know that time can't go back forever, because an infinite amount of things would have had to happen to cause the present day status of things.

Well, if that is the case, then, God couldn't have done it.

Why? In order to create the universe, there has to be nothing to before there is something. However, if there is no time, before doesn't apply and thus creation is impossible. Also, causality requires time, and thus a causal explanation, such as God, must be impossible.

Ah, you'll say that God was eternal and can supply his own time, but that doesn't really work, because that would be a form of time, and thus "an infinite amount of things would have had to happen to cause the present day status of things." In your own words.

Anyways, if things had existed forever (Steady-State theory), then starlight would be flooding our skies from practically every conceivable point in the universe (that is, if you want scientific points to back up my argument.)

Yes, I know, that is why Steady-State theory has problems. Doesn't disprove the multiverse or the oscillating universe though.

Plus the constant expansion of space in conjunction with an everlasting universe would (in order to achieve today's state) have to create matter constantly to keep the universe roughly uniform for eternity.

Well, we know the big bang occurred roughly 14 billion years ago, and the singularity before that could have existed for an infinitely long time before that, because your god seems to be able to. I honestly can't see the difference. Why can't a singularity be self-necessary, and if it can't why can your god be so?

Anyways, back on track, and back onto the subject of the big bang!

A godless (god being a metaphysical "thing" that enabled existence) big bang says that nothing caused the big bang, but it just began itself. That would be fine if we knew space-time was self-necessitating, but it isn't. You really have no backing evidence behind your claim that the universe requires no cause.

You have no evidence backing the claim that it has a cause. Your claiming that the universe because it must have been designed it requires a designer. I see no evidence for any inherent design in this universe, and no evidence of a designer. The universe if designed, was done extremely poorly, with tonnes of useless laws, planets, stars, time, space, dark matter etc.

And then after that, why is it that randomness seem to be so useful in understanding the universe, if everything is coherent and deterministic?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627550.200-enter-the-matrix-the-deep-law-that-shapes-our-reality.html?page=1

Random Matrices seem to create order from randomness. I'm not quite sure on this, and I'm probably talking garbage, but if I'm right, it is evidence that it is possible to create order from randomness, and possibly to create a coherent system of laws from randomness.

In fact, it appears that the universe would require a prior cause, since all evidence within it points toward everything having causation. The evidence against your claim is pretty hefty.

I disagree. See the rest of my post.

A can't cause B to cause A in order for the cycle to start. Just like how A can't cause A because that requires itself to be around to cause itself.

Yeah, but what if A always existed, like your God?

 

[CRASHiC]

Yeah, but what if A always existed, like your God?

Except that would break scientific law. You can't create something from nothing, and you can't make nothing from something.

 

[Mewter]

Yeah, exactly, and that would mean that your god would be powerless. He has no reference point to base his timing off, and thus he would have created the universe an infinite amount of time ago, and therefore the universe as we know it, would have already come and gone.

Honestly, it isn't. Just because we got lucky with the cosmic lottery, doesn't mean it was rigged. Really, just because the laws of the universe allow for our existence, doesn't mean that god was involved in the process of creating such laws. I want to see the evidence that god was involved in this process.

Can you imagine a color that you've never seen? How about a robot that doesn't use components of anything you've ever seen beforehand? The idea of a god is proof enough that one exists (imo.) If one didn't exist, then that would imply the absence of any idea of a god, but that's not how things are. People have the ideas of a god imprinted in their mind, so that would be proof, right?

Anyways, I gave just a fraction of the evidence available that supports my argument. Where's your backing evidence that there isn't a god responsible?

Well, if that is the case, then, God couldn't have done it.

Why? In order to create the universe, there has to be nothing to before there is something. However, if there is no time, before doesn't apply and thus creation is impossible. Also, causality requires time, and thus a causal explanation, such as God, must be impossible.

Causality only applies inside of the universe, where there is time. I'm saying that maybe the god exists outside of time, but didn't cause anything. For existence to exist, there has to be a main essence, or a singular being from which the existence can be derived. This would be the pre-universe god.

Ah, you'll say that God was eternal and can supply his own time, but that doesn't really work, because that would be a form of time, and thus "an infinite amount of things would have had to happen to cause the present day status of things." In your own words.

It wouldn't have a time. It would just be the essence of existence, and things would exist because of it.
It would be self-necessary because of this.

Also, look at my reasoning for why there can not be more than one self-necessary entity (in my last post.) If there was, then they could not exist, because they would depend on each other.

That's why it would be the only self-necessary entity that could exist.

Yes, I know, that is why Steady-State theory has problems. Doesn't disprove the multiverse or the oscillating universe though.

It does, however, disprove an eternal, generally non-changing universe.

Well, we know the big bang occurred roughly 14 billion years ago, and the singularity before that could have existed for an infinitely long time before that, because your god seems to be able to. I honestly can't see the difference. Why can't a singularity be self-necessary, and if it can't why can your god be so?

The singularity depends on space-time to exist, but what does space-time depend on? You can't say that it is self-necessary because that would mean that all the objects of space-time would depend on each other for existence, and A can't cause B to cause A!

A god can be self-necessary by being outside of space-time, and being just 1 thing, so that is how it can get around that boundary while the singularity cannot.

You have no evidence backing the claim that it has a cause. Your claiming that the universe because it must have been designed it requires a designer. I see no evidence for any inherent design in this universe, and no evidence of a designer. The universe if designed, was done extremely poorly, with tonnes of useless laws, planets, stars, time, space, dark matter etc.

Where is your evidence for saying it does not have a cause? Random things, that can kill us or have no use to us, do not demonstrate the opposite of fine-tuning. The fact of the matter is that we're here, and the laws necessary for that were extremely unique and could not have been combined in any other way in order for that to happen.

And then after that, why is it that randomness seem to be so useful in understanding the universe, if everything is coherent and deterministic?

I never said the universe was "coherent and deterministic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

*​

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627550.200-enter-the-matrix-the-deep-law-that-shapes-our-reality.html?page=1

Random Matrices seem to create order from randomness. I'm not quite sure on this, and I'm probably talking garbage, but if I'm right, it is evidence that it is possible to create order from randomness, and possibly to create a coherent system of laws from randomness.

That's very interesting. I'll look into it.

*​

Yeah, but what if A always existed, like your God?

It would not have always existed. It would have just existed, but not always. Saying "always" implies time.

 

[Aesir]

Except that would break scientific law. You can't create something from nothing, and you can't make nothing from something.

That only applies to closed systems not open systems.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Can you imagine a color that you've never seen? How about a robot that doesn't use components of anything you've ever seen beforehand? The idea of a god is proof enough that one exists (imo.) If one didn't exist, then that would imply the absence of any idea of a god, but that's not how things are. People have the ideas of a god imprinted in their mind, so that would be proof, right?

Wait... That means that... santa exists! SWEET! I'm going to get lots presents this christmas!. My point is, that your argument is kinda flawed, just because some people have the idea of god imprinted in their mind, doesn't mean that god actually exists. Some people have the idea imprinted in their mind that santa exists, does that mean he really does?

Anyways, I gave just a fraction of the evidence available that supports my argument. Where's your backing evidence that there isn't a god responsible?

Well, can you disprove that all of you aren't just part of my imagination? Look, the burden of proof is on you, because a theory isn't true just because it can't be disproved.

Can you imagine a color that you've never seen? How about a robot that doesn't use components of anything you've ever seen beforehand? The idea of a god is proof enough that one exists (imo.) If one didn't exist, then that would imply the absence of any idea of a god, but that's not how things are. People have the ideas of a god imprinted in their mind, so that would be proof, right?

Wait... That means that... santa exists! SWEET! I'm going to get lots presents this christmas!. My point is, that your argument is kinda flawed, just because some people have the idea of god imprinted in their mind, doesn't mean that god actually exists. Some people have the idea imprinted in their mind that santa exists, does that mean he really does?

Causality only applies inside of the universe, where there is time. I'm saying that maybe the god exists outside of time, but didn't cause anything.

Exactly! God couldn't have caused the universe and thus is unnecessary to our understanding of the universe.

For existence to exist, there has to be a main essence, or a singular being from which the existence can be derived. This would be the pre-universe god.

Well, what if that thing was the singularity? Couldn't that be the case?

It wouldn't have a time. It would just be the essence of existence, and things would exist because of it.

Yeah, but that is causality, in effect. His essence of existence caused the universe to come into being, in your eyes.

Also, look at my reasoning for why there can not be more than one self-necessary entity (in my last post.) If there was, then they could not exist, because they would depend on each other.

Yes, but what if the singularity was self-necessary?

It does, however, disprove an eternal, generally non-changing universe.

Yeah, but I'm not a proponent of that theory.

The singularity depends on space-time to exist, but what does space-time depend on? You can't say that it is self-necessary because that would mean that all the objects of space-time would depend on each other for existence, and A can't cause B to cause A!

No, space and time were contained within the singularity, so the singularity is self-necessary.

A god can be self-necessary by being outside of space-time, and being just 1 thing, so that is how it can get around that boundary while the singularity cannot.

Well, before the universe existed, there was no space-time, and the singularity existed fine before that. I really don't see such a boundary.

Where is your evidence for saying it does not have a cause? Random things, that can kill us or have no use to us, do not demonstrate the opposite of fine-tuning. The fact of the matter is that we're here, and the laws necessary for that were extremely unique and could not have been combined in any other way in order for that to happen.

Well, lets say that we removed the Weak Nuclear Force from our universe, tomorrow. There would be no noticeable difference. In fact, the universe forming without the influence of the Weak Nuclear Force wouldn't be very different from a universe contain the force. Basically, your last statement there was flawed.

I never said the universe was "coherent and deterministic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Yeah I've heard of the straw man fallacy. I meant "if everything is well designed and the laws of physics were so coherent, in their interactions?"

It would not have always existed. It would have just existed, but not always. Saying "always" implies time.

Yes, but lets say that A existed outside time.

 

[Mewter]

Wait... That means that... santa exists! SWEET! I'm going to get lots presents this christmas!. My point is, that your argument is kinda flawed, just because some people have the idea of god imprinted in their mind, doesn't mean that god actually exists. Some people have the idea imprinted in their mind that santa exists, does that mean he really does?

No, Santa is a collected entity of ideas.
Besides, this isn't important to my argument anyhow. The rest of my post is.

Well, can you disprove that all of you aren't just part of my imagination? Look, the burden of proof is on you, because a theory isn't true just because it can't be disproved.

Same for you.
It seems we've come to a standstill.

Exactly! God couldn't have caused the universe and thus is unnecessary to our understanding of the universe.

No, read the rest of my post.

Yeah, but that is causality, in effect. His essence of existence caused the universe to come into being, in your eyes.

No, the universe just exists because of the essence.

Yes, but what if the singularity was self-necessary?

It's not though. Space and time are two distinctly separate entities, with no linkage. Therefore, they cannot be self-necessary.

No, space and time were contained within the singularity, so the singularity is self-necessary.

Well, before the universe existed, there was no space-time, and the singularity existed fine before that. I really don't see such a boundary.

Really? The singularity existed outside of space-time?
Source please.

Well, lets say that we removed the Weak Nuclear Force from our universe, tomorrow. There would be no noticeable difference. In fact, the universe forming without the influence of the Weak Nuclear Force wouldn't be very different from a universe contain the force. Basically, your last statement there was flawed.

I think this works as a reply:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html
What about the sun's interactions? Don't they depend on the weak force?

Yeah I've heard of the straw man fallacy. I meant "if everything is well designed and the laws of physics were so coherent, in their interactions?"

Maybe because the randomness works through a methodology.
For example in quantum physics:
~1/2 chance of something occurring over 7 seconds.

Yes, but lets say that A existed outside time.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying lol.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Same for you.
It seems we've come to a standstill.

To some extent yes, none of this stuff can really be definitive, after the facts that we have before the universe existed are extremely poor. (I know, before shouldn't apply here, should it, but you get what I mean right?)

No, the universe just exists because of the essence.

Why does it need such essence, it sounds awfully airy-fairy? Can't the singularity provide that?

Also, wouldn't that be in effect causing the universe?

It's not though. Space and time are two distinctly separate entities, with no linkage. Therefore, they cannot be self-necessary.

I think they are interlinked. What about all that stuff about time-dialation and so forth?

Really? The singularity existed outside of space-time?
Source please.

The singularity contained space-time. This source here seems to suggest that all the laws of the universe and space-time were created during the big-bang.

http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/

I think this works as a reply:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html
What about the sun's interactions? Don't they depend on the weak force?

Not quite: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0604027

Maybe because the randomness works through a methodology.
For example in quantum physics:
~1/2 chance of something occurring over 7 seconds.

Yes, to some extent, but I'm just saying that randomness can produce order, through weird maths, and physics.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying lol.

Yeah. but where I disagree is, that A is a singularity or a parent universe, you think he's god.

I think we probably shouldn't continue with this, it's going nowhere.

 

[Dre89]

This is pretty interesting, Mewter is arguing virtually exactly the same thing as me, using almost identical arguments, and he's considered DH material, yet when I argue it, I get criticised.

Bob, Mewter's argument which you wrongly countered with Santa Clause is an epistemelogical one, which he didn't really articulate in depth probably due to time constraints or feeling it wasn't really that important.

The argument stems from the fact that all products of human thought are result of experiences that human had. In other words, even when you create an image of a creature in your head, your actually just compiling previous ideas in a unique way. The only thing that is 'new' is the particular selection of ideas and how they are merged not the ideas themselves.

The argument from God then arises because most humans intrinsically develop a notion of God without any sense or mental experience of him beforehand.

Now you may say we develop these notions because of religion etc., but then you must question where the notion of God came from before religion.

The fact that multiple, unrelated cultures all developed ideas of gods, which encompassed an idea, or ideas previously alien to sense and mental experience suggests that there is a God who willed that intrinsic inclination, because otherwise it would not be there.

 

[Dre89]

Why does it need such essence, it sounds awfully airy-fairy? Can't the singularity provide that?

Also, wouldn't that be in effect causing the universe?

You're assuming that God follows an event-by-event sequence like we do, that He's waiting for the future to happen as well.

The idea is that God doesn't exist in time, only we do. Therefore, event-by-event happenings is really only a matter of human perception, or perception within the universe.

You have to remember that if God created time and space, He doesn't exist in them, so the universe would in fact be an immaterial entity- it's only once you're inside the universe that it appears physical, because of time space etc.

As for how the unvierse came about there are various explanations, the eternal now theory suggests that God sees all events at once, since there is no time or space in eternity.

I think they are interlinked. What about all that stuff about time-dialation and so forth?

Even if they are linked, they're both finite so they still can't be self-necessary. All space-time is that which allows physical entities to exist.

The singularity contained space-time. This source here seems to suggest that all the laws of the universe and space-time were created during the big-bang.

http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/

Then essentially, the singularity is an immaterial, 'divine' being just like God is, just without an intellect.

If you accept that the singularity is not within space and time, then you lose physicalism, because for the singularity to have existed outside space and time then there must be existence beyond the physical.

Yes, to some extent, but I'm just saying that randomness can produce order, through weird maths, and physics.

But true randomness could overthrow that order at any given moment. Considering that you're arguing that the source for all creation is random; all material, all laws etc., there is nothing stopping it from producing new material or laws right now which could ruin our universe. The fact that that hasn't happened in 14 billion years, considering the enormous probability, suggests it isn't random.

Yeah. but where I disagree is, that A is a singularity or a parent universe, you think he's god.

Well if the singularity is a parent universe what is its parent? A universe is finite because it is a collection of laws and beings which are not self-necessary. You still haven't fixed the problem.

And the reason why we think it's God is because we realise the original being could not be physical, and would need an intellect to retain the degree of consistency and structure evident in the world, among other reasons.

I think we probably shouldn't continue with this, it's going nowhere.

We'll see what Mewter has to say.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob, Mewter's argument which you wrongly countered with Santa Clause is an epistemelogical one, which he didn't really articulate in depth probably due to time constraints or feeling it wasn't really that important.

The argument stems from the fact that all products of human thought are result of experiences that human had. In other words, even when you create an image of a creature in your head, your actually just compiling previous ideas in a unique way. The only thing that is 'new' is the particular selection of ideas and how they are merged not the ideas themselves.

The argument from God then arises because most humans intrinsically develop a notion of God without any sense or mental experience of him beforehand.

Now you may say we develop these notions because of religion etc., but then you must question where the notion of God came from before religion.

The fact that multiple, unrelated cultures all developed ideas of gods, which encompassed an idea, or ideas previously alien to sense and mental experience suggests that there is a God who willed that intrinsic inclination, because otherwise it would not be there.

Well, the idea of a god is an interesting one, remember the Egyptian gods, they were quite obviously based off nature and human experience etc. The notion of a god; I don't think is quite as intrinsic or as outside human experience as you say. Take Yaweh (the Judeo-Christian God), he seems to draw a number of parallels to a king and a human being. He is very jealous, he has a personality, he's violent, angry, a leader etc.

The point is, that these ideas have usually quite obvious parallels between the gods that people worship and their environment.

Also, just because we have an idea ingrained to us, doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. We are fallible, after all.

As for the rest of your argument, I honestly can't be bothered to try and refute it, it just goes around in circles, can we just leave it as is?

 

[Sieguest]

I'm just going to come out and say it...
This place just kind of sputtered out... Is there a list or something of topics to talk about or anything like that? (I have recently typed a critical essay concerning how education doesn't really live up to its focus if anyone is interested in seeing those points...)

 

[Mewter]

Sure! Let's see it.
Gives us something good to debate about.

 

[Sieguest]

hmm Ok then. I'm not posting the whole thing right now because it's really late and I need to get to bed. But a few points:

Education is supposed to prepare us for the future and be the great equalizer and so forth. But can it really be attained the way it is now?

Problem 1: Grades
Grades are the numerical representation of a student's learning, but this cannot be true. Grades cannot possibly provide an accurate measurement of student learning due to a few things-
a. Grade Inflation- What may be an "A" in one place may only surmount to be a "C" elsewhere. The standard of excellence is completely subjective based on instructor, so the measure of excellence is influenced by the instructor. This shows how grades are inaccurate and basically hold no weight from area to area.

b. Learning rate of students- Every student learns at a different rate. And things such as homework that is supposed to be practice is graded. So for students who need more practice to become competent with a concept, their grade shall suffer because of low homework grades at the outset of learning a new concept. In the ideal learning situation, a student who grasps a topic quickly and a student who grasps the same topic a bit slower than the other student will eventually come to know the same things and have mastery over them. So essentially graded homework goes to wrongfully hurt students who take longer to grasp a concept than other students who grasp it quickly even though eventually all of them would come to the same level of mastery over it. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Problem 2: Ranking
Ranking in itself in inherently unequal and is also inaccurate. The valedictorian who made straight A's throughout school may not have learned or retained a thing (they only memorized it for the moment it was needed, then forgot about it.) As they go into college or into the work force, while #176 in the class may have made B's and C's but will have learned everything and retained it. Look who's on the short end of the stick. It also takes from the focus of education and turns it more into competition instead of a learning area.

These are two of the main things that centralize education, but are completely detracting from the focus of actually learning. These two things make education more of a competition and lower the standard of learning and retaining information to just memorizing to "get the grade"

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

hmm Ok then. I'm not posting the whole thing right now because it's really late and I need to get to bed. But a few points:

Education is supposed to prepare us for the future and be the great equalizer and so forth. But can it really be attained the way it is now?

Problem 1: Grades
Grades are the numerical representation of a student's learning, but this cannot be true. Grades cannot possibly provide an accurate measurement of student learning due to a few things-
a. Grade Inflation- What may be an "A" in one place may only surmount to be a "C" elsewhere. The standard of excellence is completely subjective based on instructor, so the measure of excellence is influenced by the instructor. This shows how grades are inaccurate and basically hold no weight from area to area.

b. Learning rate of students- Every student learns at a different rate. And things such as homework that is supposed to be practice is graded. So for students who need more practice to become competent with a concept, their grade shall suffer because of low homework grades at the outset of learning a new concept. In the ideal learning situation, a student who grasps a topic quickly and a student who grasps the same topic a bit slower than the other student will eventually come to know the same things and have mastery over them. So essentially graded homework goes to wrongfully hurt students who take longer to grasp a concept than other students who grasp it quickly even though eventually all of them would come to the same level of mastery over it. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Problem 2: Ranking
Ranking in itself in inherently unequal and is also inaccurate. The valedictorian who made straight A's throughout school may not have learned or retained a thing (they only memorized it for the moment it was needed, then forgot about it.) As they go into college or into the work force, while #176 in the class may have made B's and C's but will have learned everything and retained it. Look who's on the short end of the stick. It also takes from the focus of education and turns it more into competition instead of a learning area.

These are two of the main things that centralize education, but are completely detracting from the focus of actually learning. These two things make education more of a competition and lower the standard of learning and retaining information to just memorizing to "get the grade"

These are both valid points, and I agree with them mostly. I'd just like to add, that exams are an imperfect measure of how good someone is at something. For example, IQ tests test your ability to do IQ tests, which may stem from your overall intelligence. Also, it's very hard to test creativity, something that may be valued in a number of fields, eg. Science, Art etc.

I do have a problem with 1b though. Basically, isn't it fair to reward students who learn faster? Being quick on the uptake would be advantageous in the real world wouldn't it?

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Also, you probably should move this to a new thread. It'd probably get more attention that way.

 

[Sieguest]

These are both valid points, and I agree with them mostly. I'd just like to add, that exams are an imperfect measure of how good someone is at something. For example, IQ tests test your ability to do IQ tests, which may stem from your overall intelligence. Also, it's very hard to test creativity, something that may be valued in a number of fields, eg. Science, Art etc.

I do agree with you for the most part here. I've had to do a bit more research (I did well on the essay I turned in, but now I'm doing a documentary over it) and I start to feel that exams could be used with a much more diagnostic approach. To have an assessment of where the student is at the moment, and do more build up from there.

I do have a problem with 1b though. Basically, isn't it fair to reward students who learn faster? Being quick on the uptake would be advantageous in the real world wouldn't it?

I do see your point here, I never thought of it that way. But should students who learn slower be punished?

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Also, you probably should move this to a new thread. It'd probably get more attention that way.

I may do that, I held off for now because I knew I was leaving for a trip with my school this past Friday so I didn't want to create a new thread and then make it seem like I abandoned it.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I do agree with you for the most part here. I've had to do a bit more research (I did well on the essay I turned in, but now I'm doing a documentary over it) and I start to feel that exams could be used with a much more diagnostic approach. To have an assessment of where the student is at the moment, and do more build up from there.

Yeah, that's what I believe the purpose of the exams should be. However, another side effect of the exams is, that one has to study for them. This makes sure that the students do revision, and ensures that they have some kind of understanding of the topic. Though, you could do this sort of thing without the massive amount of importance placed on the exams.

I do see your point here, I never thought of it that way. But should students who learn slower be punished?

Well, to be honest, I'm not sure on that one, because there are two ways of looking at it.

I may do that, I held off for now because I knew I was leaving for a trip with my school this past Friday so I didn't want to create a new thread and then make it seem like I abandoned it.

Yeah, that's okay with me, I'm kinda busy at the moment as well, I can't really post that much.

 

[Dre89]

Hey can one of the DHers post this in the DJH social thread, I'd like to get their opinion on it. It would be much appreciated.

From Dre-
"The DH is so biased it’s not funny.

People say that I use bad arguments or that my lack of scientific knowledge hinders my debating, but that just shows they haven’t understood what I’ve been arguing the whole time…

I don't argue against big bang, I would need scientific knowledge for that, I argue you need God for it. Whether you need God for big bang or not is not a scientific issue, it's a metaphysical one, and science has no proofs for any metaphysical issues, hence why atheism requires philosophical thought, not that of the scientific kind.

The only time I ever directly argued against big bang/evo was when I used my intelligent design from humanity argument in which I borrowed from Aristotle. The premises in that argument were based on falsifiable observations of nature, which is what science does. So this wasn't just metaphysical garbage that has no authority over the next metaphysical theory, I actually had falsifiable reasons for why my argument was right and others weren't.

So again, those who think my lack of scientific knowledge actually affected my debating either don’t understand what I was arguing, or don't really understand the metaphysics of the god debate.

Wit hregards to acceptance into the DH, It's not a matter of whether your atheist or Christian, it's matter of what you argue, not how good you are at it. You just have to argue from politics or science and you'll get in eventually.

Since I've debated nearly every currently active memeber, I know the debating abilities of alot of people, and for such an overly selective board, there's a very large gap in the levels of certain debaters. What I noticed though is that they all seem to argue the same general things, just at very different skill levels, but it doesn't seem to matter to the DH as long as you argue what they like.

This isn't just my opinion, I've had other people tell me this too, and I've had people tell me the DH is just ‘full of elitists who aren't really good at the debating’- their words not mine, I actually think the debating here is pretty good, but not good enough to justify the strict admission process.

Here's an example of how baised the DH is- when I first came here, I was told by CK not to use the cosmological argument, because it's 'laughable at best', and I was told by someone else not to argue against evolution because I would be wrong. That just shows how open the DH is to different ideas- the fact they told me not to take those paths shows they obviously wouldn't accept someone who does use them, otherwise they would be promoting people to argue different ideas.

It's pretty evident it's what you argue not how you argue, because considering I refence the greatest philosopher's in the western world, it's not as if I get dscriminated against because I don't debate well for an undergraduate, because I use the people who put those ideas across best.

So I'd like to see someone tell me the DH is not biased after that."

 

[Sieguest]

I'm not in the DH, but I feel the need to point some things out. I've omitted the part of your post in which you explain the premise of your arguments and started at the your grievances about the DH.

Wit hregards to acceptance into the DH, It's not a matter of whether your atheist or Christian, it's matter of what you argue, not how good you are at it. You just have to argue from politics or science and you'll get in eventually.

Since I've debated nearly every currently active memeber, I know the debating abilities of alot of people, and for such an overly selective board, there's a very large gap in the levels of certain debaters. What I noticed though is that they all seem to argue the same general things, just at very different skill levels, but it doesn't seem to matter to the DH as long as you argue what they like.

See my last response at the bottom of this post.

This isn't just my opinion, I've had other people tell me this too, and I've had people tell me the DH is just ‘full of elitists who aren't really good at the debating’- their words not mine, I actually think the debating here is pretty good, but not good enough to justify the strict admission process.

Out of curiosity, how many of those people have been through here?

Here's an example of how baised the DH is- when I first came here, I was told by CK not to use the cosmological argument, because it's 'laughable at best', and I was told by someone else not to argue against evolution because I would be wrong. That just shows how open the DH is to different ideas- the fact they told me not to take those paths shows they obviously wouldn't accept someone who does use them, otherwise they would be promoting people to argue different ideas.

I think the example I've highlighted in red kills the coherence of your post.
Do boulders become broken down into rocks?
Do you grow taller or shorter as you get older.
Do different species of turtle exist?
Does every human look different?
Do we gain immunity to diseases we are introduced in small doses?
Arguing against evolution is like answering "no" to all of these questions.
No one said it's against the rules to argue against evolution, but it's strongly suggested not to because there is so much concrete evidence that shows evolution is present. Maybe not on the Darwinist extreme that we came from apes. But evolution outside of the extreme Darwinist approach exists.

It's pretty evident it's what you argue not how you argue, because considering I refence the greatest philosopher's in the western world, it's not as if I get dscriminated against because I don't debate well for an undergraduate, because I use the people who put those ideas across best.

I disagree. If you argue what the DHer's want you to argue, then you basically leave no room for a debate at all since if you argue to their tastes, then they'll argee with you. The only opposition would be other PGers, but I can personally attest to that not being the case.

 

[Mewter]

The Debate Hall is no doubt biased.
Saying it isn't is like arguing against evolution!

 

[Dre89]

There is opposition to evolution though.

I heard that it has apparently been mathematically refuted, I didn't really understand but apparently it contradicts the laws of acceleration or something like that. Apparently the idea that the unvierse is infinitely expanding is wrong too because the evidence was that galaxies are moving further apart but they've apaprently found galaxies moving closer together. I also heard something about the 'Doppler Effect', but I don't know what that is.

It doesn't even matter what kind of opposition there is, they didn't even know what my argument was, and you should always be open to new arguments.

That's stuff I've just heard, but I don't argue it because I don't know it. There's also Creationist Evolution, but that's more of a variation than an opposition.

Plus Guest, you weren't here when I first came. Dhers are supposed to merely promote/provoke PG activity, not dominate the threads, yet in my first thread I had something like 5 DHers ganging up on me telling me I was wrong. The thing is, 99% of the time they weren't even debating my Aristotle argument, where I directly challenged evolution, they were attacking my anti-athiesm argument.

With regards to your last statement, they only accept people who argue from fields which they undertsand and accept, which are basically politics and science.

A good example of the bias was Mewter's debate with Bob earlier in this thread. Mewter is a respected DH member, yet he uses virtually the exact same argument as I did against Bob, yet when I do that people here just say it's metaphysical garbage bla bla..

Mewter could you please paste my rant in the post above in the DH social thread? I want to see what they think.

 

[Sucumbio]

Dre.

You and I pretty much started posting here in the PG around the same time. I had a few weeks ahead of you in which I bombarded the board and addressed all the old topics, but then CK made his essay contest, and you and I took the challenge. I argued against the article, you argued for it. (That's extremely simplified, mind you, I know technically you didn't agree with the article, but in simple terms, that's the meat of it.)

The difficulty here is that if you were to take on ANY argument that didn't eviscerate Nuckols' piece, you were going to have to come up with some serious stuff. Real serious. As it turned out, you did present -an- argument, but it had too many holes. So many that not 1 or 2 but several posters each took a stab at pointing them out. Yes, you were ganged up on, but to an end... to (hopefully) get you to realize the weakness in your idea.

If anything I'd offer to back YOU up, and write a separate piece defending your points. The difficulty here is that 1.) I'm already in the DH, and it's kind of a moot point at this stage 2.) there's really no defending your position. That's yet another trick to good debate. Always choose your arguments carefully (something even I will sometimes neglect in the heat of the moment). You can argue the Earth is flat for all I care, but when you do it, you make sure your argument is so solid, and ready for the attacks, that you're prepared for anything that's thrown at you. And if you can think of an argument against what you're saying and can't think of a rebuttal, it's a bad argument, and you should abate.

Your rant about the DH tells me that you're embittered about how your argument went down. That's something else. This is an internet message forum. There's no point to losing sleep over 1 argument. If you still are interested in applying for DH membership, simply move on, and take another crack at debating in some other topics, make some new topics, show that you're capable of arguing properly without the fallacies (real or imagined) that so plagued you originally. Yes the DH may seem biased; perhaps we're mainly liberal - we're mainly scientific in terms of approach to subjects and matters. But we're not deadpan to new ideas and we're definitely not without the need for diversity.

You lost this round, Dre. That's it, nothing more to read into it. No need to keep harping on about it, or to let it turn you against the idea of being a DH member, or to write the DH off as a liberal, science-only club. You have had a while now to reflect on what you've learned by debating mewter, guest, myself, CK, aesir, and others. You've gotten plenty of feedback on your weaknesses. It's now time to show us your strengths! Show that you're not 1-dimensional, that you aren't without depth. The ball remains in your court, as always, and we will be here to respond.

 

[Mewter]

Dre.

This part of the post is in regards to your statement about my argument against Bob Jane's argument being virtually the same as yours (and my being admitted while you were not.)

I want to clarify that I was playing a false counter-position against Bob Jane T Mart, yet during the debate, he stated that my reasoning was clearer and easier to understand than yours due to my use of words*. Whether or not they were the same argument, it's all in the way you illustrate your point.

There are some things you can pay more attention to when setting up your argument:
For example, try using several different methods of getting your point across in your post, and give similes and metaphors if you need to. Make analogies. Keep repetition to a minimum, and organize everything into coherent chunks.

Also watch out for any of the fallacies* that can ruin your argument (whether it's true or not.) If you include a fallacy in your argument, then you can bet it will be found out and then you will have to explain (no matter how correct your conclusion is) your point again. If another member does not understand your point, tackle it again from another degree so that your point is less affected by semantics and much more solid.

For now, I would just suggest to forget about the previous argument and work toward the Debate Hall in other debates.

Footnotes:
*http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10009195&postcount=445
*http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

 

[Dre89]

Dre.

You and I pretty much started posting here in the PG around the same time. I had a few weeks ahead of you in which I bombarded the board and addressed all the old topics, but then CK made his essay contest, and you and I took the challenge. I argued against the article, you argued for it. (That's extremely simplified, mind you, I know technically you didn't agree with the article, but in simple terms, that's the meat of it.)

The difficulty here is that if you were to take on ANY argument that didn't eviscerate Nuckols' piece, you were going to have to come up with some serious stuff. Real serious. As it turned out, you did present -an- argument, but it had too many holes. So many that not 1 or 2 but several posters each took a stab at pointing them out. Yes, you were ganged up on, but to an end... to (hopefully) get you to realize the weakness in your idea.

If anything I'd offer to back YOU up, and write a separate piece defending your points. The difficulty here is that 1.) I'm already in the DH, and it's kind of a moot point at this stage 2.) there's really no defending your position. That's yet another trick to good debate. Always choose your arguments carefully (something even I will sometimes neglect in the heat of the moment). You can argue the Earth is flat for all I care, but when you do it, you make sure your argument is so solid, and ready for the attacks, that you're prepared for anything that's thrown at you. And if you can think of an argument against what you're saying and can't think of a rebuttal, it's a bad argument, and you should abate.

Your rant about the DH tells me that you're embittered about how your argument went down. That's something else. This is an internet message forum. There's no point to losing sleep over 1 argument. If you still are interested in applying for DH membership, simply move on, and take another crack at debating in some other topics, make some new topics, show that you're capable of arguing properly without the fallacies (real or imagined) that so plagued you originally. Yes the DH may seem biased; perhaps we're mainly liberal - we're mainly scientific in terms of approach to subjects and matters. But we're not deadpan to new ideas and we're definitely not without the need for diversity.

You lost this round, Dre. That's it, nothing more to read into it. No need to keep harping on about it, or to let it turn you against the idea of being a DH member, or to write the DH off as a liberal, science-only club. You have had a while now to reflect on what you've learned by debating mewter, guest, myself, CK, aesir, and others. You've gotten plenty of feedback on your weaknesses. It's now time to show us your strengths! Show that you're not 1-dimensional, that you aren't without depth. The ball remains in your court, as always, and we will be here to respond.

You're talking as if I only made that one thread, I've participated in several, even ones where scientific or political knowledge aren't required, yet I still don't get admitted after several months.

With regards to my original thread, even if I was wrong, the way the DHers went about it is what I'm complaining about. DHers are just supposed to promote activity, instead 5 of them ganged up on me telling me I was wrong.

They also said my lack of scientific knowledge hindered me, yet most of the argument was against atheism, which is metaphysical not scientific. So the fact they constantly attacked me on that shows a bias towards people of differing belief.

The fact that CK told me that the cosmological argument, which is one of the most prominent metaphysical arguments, is laughable at best shows a heavy bias, and the fact I was told not to argue against their beliefs furthers that.

Secondly, you make out that my argument had so many holes in it it was indefendable. Of course there would be holes in it, just like any other undergraduate argument, but two of my three sections (the two main sections at that) were against atheism, not bb/evo, and I used some of the greatest western philosophers in history. So to say that there were so many holes that it was indefendable would be to disrespect those philosophers and philosophy in general. Yes my argument would have holes, but there's no way that the greatest philosophers would have holes so big they are indefendable, otherwise they wouldn't have the reputation they do.

Thirdly, your third paragraph pretty much just admitted that the bar is raised considerably higher for me simply because my beliefs or arguments are different to the DHers, that in itself is not fair and definitely a bias.

The thing is, there isn't anything I can really do, I've already participated in other debates over a period of months, and if referencing the greatest philosophers isn't good enough, then nothing philosophical will be. The only way I could get in is if I changed my arguments to match theirs and argued from scientific and political backgrounds, all so it suits the DHers.

So can someone please post my original rant in the DH social thread? If I'm going to get criticised there (which I have) it's only fair that I defend myself.

 

[Dre89]

Bob said this in the DH social thread and this is the only place I can defend myself so this is my reply-

"I personally just think this rant is just a whine about how his arguments aren't quite great hits with the rest of the Debate Hall. This may be due to the fact that the majority of his arguments are less than watertight, and have a number of rather large holes in them. However, he believes that it's mainly due to bias."

I'm sorry Bob, no offence, but if anyone is not qualified to comment on the validity of my arguments it's probably you. The fact you went into a God debate assuming that God has a shize, shape, colour etc. implies that you have no experience in the field of philosophy at all.

I'm not making a judgement of you as a debator as whole, just that considering that my arguements are usually strictly philosophical, someone who doesn't have any experience in the field usually isn't a good commentator on it, that's all.

Any undergraduate philosophy student could probably name the philosophers that I derive alot of my arguments from, which according to you apparently aren't 'watertight', yet they come from the greatest philosophers in wetern world.....

What makes me laugh is that my professors could come here, whose intellects exceed ours severley, and would get told their arguments aren't watertight, which is laughable.