I've decided to try my disprove of atheism flaw search again. This time with rules.

Sorry for intervening a bit here. I understand what you mean by this, you are totally right that something cannot happen for absolutely no reason. He must also look at occams razor (for something to happen without a reason we must have another process at hand, for which there are no indications and are unnecessary, and furthermore purely illogical), remember that science is founded on cause and effect, without reasons we get nowhere (or another way of saying it, without cause we get no effect).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you, for explaining what I had tried to say and couldn't do so adequately.

Oh, and while I'm here, Przyk, about time being 'generated': My theory mostly goes against time being 'generated,' in case you failed to see that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi Rokkon,

I can easily imagine walking outside to see a flourescent pink whale spontaneously pop out of nowhere, float around in midair for a bit, then disappear just as quickly, all for no reason. A mechanism enabling this would not be required by definition, so there'd simply be nothing to explain.

Note that I'm not saying you should lose sleep over the possibility that events can occur without cause. Scientists work on the assumption that nature is orderly and have found causal relations pretty much everywhere they've looked. Just make sure you know the difference between a reasonable assumption and one that can be proven beyond all doubt.

Predetermining an infinite sequence with no beginning is impossible pretty much by definition. That doesn't mean an infinite sequence can't follow one or more rules, though. Why have you ruled this possibility out?

Why can only a deity, and not, say, some natural process, exist "outside of time" (not something really well defined, but oh well...)? Why doesn't a deity need to be "caused"? Those were my points.

So what would it change with respect to? Or is it completely frozen? Then how can it cause anything?

You know that the definitions of physical objects are necessarily only approximate. You will never be able to define what materials in what forms to what tolerances constitute a horse, chair, car, or anything else you can think of.

A minor "just so you know" point: "density = mass / volume" is a definition - not a law. \(F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\) is an example of a (now superseded) law.

I get the slight suspicion you see a deity as an acceptable exception to the problems with infinite and finite existences you mentioned earlier.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cyperium:

Why? Isn't this false by definition?

Anyway that's not what Occam's razor says. Also remember that the razor is a tool for selecting scientific theories that guarantees simplicity and a minimum of special assumptions, and not necessarily truth. Of course "it happened for no reason" will always fail as badly as "God did it" by the razor's standards. Even if it were suspected that a particularly bizarre "one shot" event were uncaused, this suspicion could never be confirmed beyond all doubt.

Is a practical assumption ("nature is orderly") that has so far never failed the same thing as a universal truth beyond doubt?

 

The problem is not so much whether time is or isn't generated, but rather whether or not it actually means anything to attribute the property of being generatable to time.

 

First of all, if something were to happen for no reason, it would defy all forms of logic that have proven effective in finding an answer.

Second of all, the only applicable 'rule' that would be able to allow anything close to this alternative to a predetermined infinite sequence would be a strict (not to mention the ruling out of anything random) pattern or set of patterns that would include everything in the universe at all times, which has been proven not to be the case.

My response to paragraphs #3 & #4 is that, yes, it is completely frozen, but no, the fact that being in such a state does not mean that you can't change anything not in that state. Try to imagine a world where there's this person working on a script, for, let's say, a movie or play, and absolutely nothing else happens in this world. And when this person makes changes, he makes them all at the same time. He already knows what changes he's making from the start to the finish, and he never changes his mind. I have no idea how ambiguous you're going to find this, but it's the best I can do for now. At least, until I think of something less ambiguous to say.

As for paragraph #5, I must say that if I'm interpreting what you are saying correctly, you are very wrong. If you were correct, we wouldn't even have names for any of those things you listed, because we would have no way of telling which one was which by any differences between any of them to distinguish between them. In fact, we wouldn't have most of the dictionary that we have, because there would be no need for any distinct names in a world that has no criteria something must fit in order to be categorized in any way, therefore making everything that exists the exact same thing as everything else in the entire universe. Perhaps you are thinking of the fact that despite the labels we put on objects, there will always be a chance that there's at least one thing different between that object and another object under the same label? After all, you usually need not go any farther than 2nd grade to have your teacher tell you that no two people are exactly alike. But still, the very fact that we can put a label on anything proves that there is criteria which something must meet in order for it to be what it is.

If you feel that I have assumed incorrectly the points you were trying to make, do tell. After all, it would be most ignorant of me to judge what you mean merely by what you say.

 

No, because we don't know how anything even could happen without a cause, so if you think it can happen, then there must be another process that has no cause-effect reliability.

No, but it is knowledge by the best understanding we've got, and I don't see why we should say that something could start without a cause.

 

How so? And I keep seeing you use the term "logic" in the wrong contexts. Formal logic defines the rules for deriving conditionals from other conditionals, like:

"A implies B" and "B implies C", therefore "A implies C"
or
"A implies B", therefore "not B implies not A"

Logic alone neither gives you the premises nor the rules of inference (ie. what implies what) for any system. Science ultimately gets both from observation and experimentation, and even then only accepts the rules tentatively. You seem to think there's another source of such knowledge about the universe.

No it hasn't. Take a look at the laws of physics you've learned in highschool. They define the evolution of the universe without requiring a beginning to time. In general all you need to do is express laws as differential equations.

Why can only a person work on the script?

Something like that, but that's what I meant by forms (plural) and tolerances. Also, I'm not saying that objects cannot be classified - as clearly they are and it is of great practical value to do this. But you can't do it precisely or completely objectively, which is why getting computers to correctly identify objects in photographs and videos is such a difficult problem. There will always be a certain degree of subjectivity in the assignment of labels. Anyway this isn't so important.

 

Asking how something can happen presupposes a cause. If there's no cause the question is simply inappropriate.

Why?

Agreed. I never said we should give the possibility that events occur without cause serious consideration - just that we shouldn't claim a priori knowledge that there can never be such events.

 

Umm... It seems like you're saying that I'm wrong because what I say is right, which makes no sense. You essentially just said that even formal logic agrees that everything that happens needs a cause, which is one thing I'm saying.

I never said in my theory that logic will tell you what the cause or result was. What I said was that logically, one could never be able to justify the infinite sequence that would be time without a beginning, essentially bringing us back to the horribly ambiguous "time generation" concept.

Time and time again, I have heard one thing to be true in one class, only to find out in a class in the future from that point that it was in fact not true and that the teacher already knew it wasn't true. Therefore, I try to look ahaed of my formal education. In a book of more advanced science ("Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, to be precise), I have read that certain theories of today are only accepted because people find no usefulness in researching it further (Like time beginning at the Big Bang, only because nothing that happened before the Big Bang would affect anything today). Besides, in this flaw search, I'm not looking merely for "so and so said this contradiction to your theory," but something more along the lines of "so and so used this evidence gathered together using this form of logic to conclude this conclusion that contradicts your theory." And even then, I might have something to challenge that, perhaps a point that I do not agree on (I try to explain why), and then you'll just have to try harder to convince me, or you could try to find something else to convince me.

*sigh* It's an analogy intended to explain how things work. If it wasn't an analogy, then this comment would be more relevant.

My personal belief is that there are some qualities of an object that are defined by the label put on it (assuming that the label is accurate), and there are some qualities that don't matter as much, because they won't change the general label. Due to this further explanation of what you said, I can see there are some similarities after all.

 

Where did I say anything along the lines of "every statement is implied by at least one other statement"? Logic only defines rules for combining/transforming inferences if and where such inferences exist.

You are attempting to use logic to reach the results "a deity exists" and "every event must have a cause".

That isn't really relevant. Right or wrong, the laws of physics you have learned disprove your claim that an infinite universe is logically impossible. Take a simple universe, for example, with only two particles that attract each other gravitationally. They will orbit one another perpetually, with no need for a beginning or end in time. It's an example of the kind of universe you said couldn't exist.

We've got our hands a bit tied as far as the Big Bang is concerned (or it certainly looks that way for now). We can't see what preceded it (actually I've heard that the model renders the concept of "before the Big Bang" nonsensical), nor do we have the option of observing a number of big bangs to see what leads up to each one.

Theories are not in general assumed to be correct until shown otherwise (science only does this for theories that have a reasonable history of generating accurate predictions). You should decide whether it is yourself or others you are trying to convince of your beliefs. You can believe whatever you want for yourself, but as far as I'm concerned I've traced your conclusion to some assumptions I'm personally not altogether happy with, and I will not accept your conclusions unless you can convince me to adopt all the assumptions. You don't have to worry too much about "every event has a cause" as I already work on this assumption for the most part - just don't claim that you can prove it to be true beyond all possible doubt. For the rest, you can try to provide justification, or we can agree to disagree.

Outside the context of your analogy, the question translates to: "Why can only a deity manipulate the universe from outside of time?"

 

Looks like I'm not the only one who speaks ambiguously. Sorry about misunderstanding what you said.

Using logic for the latter? Yes. For the former? Not so much.

That would make sense. However, it would create a logical problem when more deeply investigated. Assuming that it isn't in a looped cycle, it would create the problem of the infinitely small details (though not by much, it is easier to imagine an eternal universe with less happening in it) to remain changing infinitely into any direction in time. And, as said before, I'd have to come up with another way to phrase the horrendously ambiguous concept of time generation in order to explain it adequately. Let's see... Personally, I see no way that there will perpetually be more to anything, especially so with events in a sequence already passed by, making them predetermined. Automatically, something is predetermined when it is passed by, due to the fact that in happening, its occurrance would be guaranteed (because it already happened). By any recording system, be it man-made, alien made, or even built into the universe itself (that might be a bit ambiguous), you would be able to record that. But let's say that the direction in which you are recording gives a literally infinite sequence. Obviously, you cannot record something infinite by any method (including the 'built into the universe' thing), because trying to do so would take literally forever, due to there always being more in infinity. If not even the reality in which you are in (very general and ambiguous term there) can record the past, then there is no way it can be guaranteed to have happened, which is a prerequisite for happening at all. That is how I (possibly even more ambiguously than the last time) have ruled out an infinite past, therefore meaning the universe had to have had a beginning.

I was using the Big Bang as an example. And in the second parenthesis-clad statement, I have already said that Stephen Hawking said in A Brief History of Time that the ruling out of the 'before the big bang' concept was a matter of "let's not go there, we'll never find that out." And why would Stephen Hawking lie to us?

Actually, I am kind of in-between believing and not believing my theory. On one hand, I personally find the theory perfectly logical, but on the other hand, I'm just a freshman at a hick highschool, and the chances of me scoring perfect on any of my first few tries at theorizing are almost null. So here I am, asking others to satisfy the latter in such a way that I myself am convinced that I am wrong, and if not, then I will believe I am right. And it doesn't end with this thread; if I believe I am right, and then find out that I'm wrong at a very old age, then I will still try to satisfy my need to know why I am wrong.

Actually, it doesn't matter what it is; all that matters is that it is outside of time and that it has sufficient ability to manipulate in-time.

Okay, hopefully that wasn't too ambiguous.

 

Sure, it is inappropriate, since there is no cause to talk about, and also nothing happening. If something would happen that seemingly has no cause, then itself must be the cause.

If the happening itself is the cause then there really is "a priori", existance by existance.

 

I just realized an opportunity for further explaination of myself in general. The rules I made for this thread (specifically, the changing-the-subject one), being no longer enforced, would have otherwise stopped me from making this confession, which I have tried to confess in more subtle ways before. However, the amount these words carry out the desired effect for this would have been much higher, had I said this while (Q) and those others who had made many accusations at me were still here. Nevertheless, I say these words, so that if they, or anyone else were to accuse me again, they would have better understanding of why they believe I am fitting of the words they say at me. *ahem*

I have Asperger's Syndrome. A mental disorder known of in Europe since the 1940's, yet not introduced to America until 1994, it renders the social skills of those who have it flawed beyond much comprehension, therefore giving little chance for the understanding of my words by other people. Due to the nature of this disorder, I can seem ignorant, arrogant, idiotic, selfish, and even very offensive, all without even realizing it myself. While I have had training with social skills, I have a long way to go before I can achieve good methods of communication, thus rendering near useless my academic ability (another characteristic of my kind). And the faulty communication can be mutual, too. I do not take hints very easily, nor do I see the importance of body language (not very detrimentary here, though), and a joke could be an offense, and vice versa.

There. I've said it. Now, we can get back to the flaw search.

 

Where'd (Q) go, anyway? He's apparently refused to respond to many things (even before my list of every word he's said in either of my threads). Things such as my reference to Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, which I had mentioned to counter his fundamentalist faith in a technicality, or my questioning of his loyalty to this forum's own rules (responding to the accusation that he refuses to obey MY rules DOES NOT COUNT), among other things. Not that the requested responses would gain him any credibility in my eyes. It would certainly take more than forcedly responding to my ignored words (it's too late; he should have acknowledged them a LONG time ago if he wanted to prove himself a good man) to prove to me that he is anything but a liar, hypocrite, coward, jerk, dignity thief, and overall bad person. Even with acknowledgement of my words, he would still need to explain his own words. I mean, he never explained why he thought my rules were worthy of criticism, or gave further explanation of the flaws that he pointed out (even after my many requests for said explanation). The fact that he hasn't posted here for some time could mean that he either doesn't come to this thread anymore, or that he's speechless (much more likely the former).

Now that he's gone, however, things are a bit too quiet around here.

 

I'm here.

I've responded to your posts, until you decided to make your own rules. In other words, to disagree with you is equivalent to breaking those rules. You can therefore assert anything you want.

Who cares?

And I should care about that, why?

So, ignoring you means I'm a bad person? You forgot to leave behind your elementary school notions when you became a high school freshman.

Yes, speechless. I am all a quiver to your presence. Enlighten me with your vacuous affirmations.

I can easily liven it up for you.

 

Okay.

Umm... I wasn't trying to oppress disagreement. I was just trying to eliminate frustration on everyone's part by making sure no one said anything meaningless (I'm sure you have something to respond to that, but I can't seem to figure out what. Time will tell.)

Do my eyes decieve me? I am seeing words that deny the importance of predetermined fact by one of the most reliable sources of information! Truly, you must not be trying to imply that you honestly don't see why you should be consistent with what is known to be true, especially when you try to use facts from the same type of source yourself?

You should care because you are quite successfully making the impression that you are a major hypocrite. You say I ignore you, and then you do just that!

Indirectly, yes. By ignoring me, you are failing to live up to the same values that you try to force on me (and I even try to live up to them!). By criticizing me for apparent failure to live up to those values, you are confirming your own horribly biased way of thinking! And by pretending it doesn't matter, you are certainly getting away with a lot by still being allowed on this site! But you're a MODERATOR?!? Even other moderators don't like you, for apparently, you do this to everyone!

I do sense the sarcasm here.

If you do so, make sure to accomplish a change in your entire personality for the better, because we're getting nowhere.

 

Quite simple, really. You decide what is meaningless.

I did? Where?

Ah, so Hawking's wrote that book to NOT make a profit?

I'll go out on a limb, getting the impression you don't like being ignored?

I wasn't aware intelligence was to be forced.

I'm crushed.

Elementary, Watson.

I'm trying on a new one as we speak. What do you think?

 

Yes, but I do try to control myself. After all, it would be quite dishonorable for me to dismiss something as meaningless just because someone has a point. But no. I try to keep it so that people don't make uninformed assumptions on mytheory, only to find out that what I said, or at least what they got from what I said, wasn't necessarily what I meant. I also have had many experiences with people making ridiculous assumptions about what I say that come from an unknown source. One time, when I was trying to explain the difference between fact and opinion (as defined in the dictionary), people opposed me by saying that I have no way to know that my religion is correct (talk about unrelated!) Obviously, such events caused a lot of frustration.

You seemed to not care about what he said in the book, or have I, too, misinterpreted you words, as you have mine?

A book of lies will eventually cause more loss than gain, and I'm sure that Stephen Hawking can figure that out on his own. Then again, people seem to be losing their intelligence these days, so maybe he decided no one would notice the faulty information? I'll have to think about that one.

That, yes, but I dislike being abused by a hypocrite even more (yes, I do realize 'abused' is a very vague term. I, unfortunately, do have problems with saying words in any way that isn't vague.)

No, I'm talking about the fact that you tell me that I'm so ignorant, when, in fact, I am (trying to be) not ignorant at all!

Hm. To tell you the truth, I have been looking forward to reporting your aggrivating behaviour, and when I finally found out how I could do so, I also found out that I couldn't because I would need to send a private message to someone who's profile cannot store any more messages. They must be someone important.

Yes, I do agree, it was quite obvious.

I, uhh, don't really know how I should respond to what you said here. I couldn't think of anything that was all at the same time witty, casual, relevant, and comical in a subtle way, so... yeah. This'll have to do.

 

Rather uneventful here as of late, wouldn't you (no one specific) agree?

So (Q), I remember you mentioning that my general idea of time is flawed, to say it simply. Putting our vast mutual hatred aside for a small moment, perhaps you could tell me why? Of course I anticipate you saying that you already have done so many times, so let me make it more clear what I'm asking of you.

What I want this time is not simply paraphrasing what you have already said. Perhaps you could go into details, mentioning the specific flaws with my resoning as far as the definition of time goes, or even telling me what is accepted as the correct definition of time? It would certainly accelerate our progress with this second attempt at searching for flaws here.

By the way, I do now realize why you only hate me more for the rules I have been using for this thread, and I think I understand why you criticize them.
However, I must say that the rules were based on past experiences where

1. People have forgotten entirely what the discussion was about due to the overuse of meaningless insults,

2. People have misunderstood what I was trying to say, resulting in #3 and #4,

3. People have, intentionally or not, changed the subject of the discussion (remember when I told you of the time when I was trying to mention the difference between the words 'fact' and 'opinion,' only to be told that I had no idea that my religion was correct, without my audience even thinking about the difference between fact and opinion?), or

4. People have actually gone into debates where both me and my adversary(s) were asserting on each other the exact same arguement as the opposition.

So, as you can see, there are events in my life which I do not wish to repeat.

But, anyway, if you could go into further detail in explaining the errors with my understanding of time, perhaps even explaining what is known to be correct, we would be making considerably more progress.