I don’t disagree with any of this, I think. But I’d qualify a few things. One even if universes pop into existence, it seems to me that something caused them to “pop” at that particular point in time, and not a second sooner or later. As far as 2+2=4, of course my point is that that would hold wherever the concept of twoness, fourness, addition and equality hold.
I don’t see what evidence there is for anything eternal or infinite. Can you point to something?
Where did matter come from? It it was birthed through energy, what provided the energy? I see a Prime Mover as a much less problematic proposition.
I guess. But that doesn’t have anything to do with what I’ve been discussing. EHWn I say Prime Mover or god or God, I ascribe no qualities to Him other than He operates outside of the laws of causality. And that He made it all possible.
Boneheaded? Hmmm. I think the concept is interesting and that one CAN have a view, wrong as it might be. YOU think that even having a view is boneheaded—“more useless” than opining on Care Bear Land, yet you have posted many very long posts about the very subject. You may want to look up the term “boneheaded”. But thanks for the chuckle.
Cite, please, for your omniscience.
You can construct a null hypothesis to support either position. But neither would be very helpful. I don’t see how what is most usefully a statistical tool can help when we will have no statistics to test they hypothesis against. I am not arguing there is evidence for god. And you have no evidence for there not being a god.
Ah, cute. So the whole discussion is moot, a waste of time, because if we take away logic, we have no other tool to “prove” anything. Not helpful to the discussion, but cute.
Yes. Though I admit that my symbolic logic class that introduced it to me was quite a ways ago. I do get hung up on the nuances. Perhaps you’d be so good as to point to where you’d like me to focus:
Right back at ya.
You can stop wasting them any time you’d like. Look, you’re really starting to be a jerk here. “Ignorant” of the term of the way you’ve been using it? That’s an add way to put something. First, I think you are misunderstanding my use of the terms. Second, IF I were mistaken in how you were using a term, whose fault is that? Maybe you haven’t been clear. But if you want to throw around “ignorant” as a chickenshit backhanded insult in a way that skirts being a violation, knock yourself out. Here. let me help you: I’ll even admit to actual ignorance. I am ignorant as to why someone who doesn’'t think logic applies to a discussion extra-universally has spent so much time using logic to tell me my position isn’t one worth holding onto. I’ll also admit ignorance as to why your wife married you and why your family loves you. Or if they do. and why you wore that shirt today. There: ignorant on many levels. Happy?
You’re asking that I abandon the very tool we have to understand things. No thanks.
But you’re assuming that there is no time. Tell me, do you assume there is no length width and depth, too? Why? Why not? PLease be sure to answer this.
No. I’m saying it is useful here. and it is so useful here, so consistently, that I have no reason to accept the default proposition that it will be not be useful elsewhere. SHOW ME WHERE THAT IS NOT A LOGICAL POSITION. IN FACT, SHOW ME HOW THAT IS NOT THE MOST LOGICAL POSITION. Please answer both independently. Note that I’m not saying it is necessarily correct, only that it is a logical position.
Time “as we know it”. Yes. But we cannot know the relationship between our time and whatever (if any) construct of time might exist in another universe. It may be 1) non existent or 2) existent. And if 2, it may be nothing like our construct or it may be very similar, even identical. So you are arguing from a position of which you have no knowledge.
Maybe. Probably even. But I don’t see why I can’t think about it. and I really don’t see why you, having the position you do, really give a shit one way or another.
I’ve already pointed out the problems with NUmber 4, which bleeds into 5 and 6.
[QUOTE=MrDibbleThere may be something else, something that looks an awful lot like DL, but WE CAN’T SAY, because we CAN KNOW NOTHING about Outside The Universe.[/QUOTE]
So, I may—may—be 100% correct. Good. That’s comforting. I’m glad you see that.
SHeezus! How can we be so much on different pages. Yes. Eleven dimensions. One Universe. Our universe. Or so the theory goes.
I’m talking about simple, two-dimensional plane geometry, which is pure in a sense. When you introduce variables such as curvature, it’s no longer as valuable a tool. I’m talking about Pi. I’m talking about relationships that have been proven to hold true in a two dimensional world.
Again, that’s an assumption. Not a fact. “And we will never know” wold be closer to a fact, but still an assumption as well.
Nope. Again, you are assuming that there can be no time construct outside of our universe. You are assuming that our universe, big bang included, is not an event inside a larger framework.
No, I don’t see not capitalizing God as demeaning. That’s not the what I was referring to.
For me the term “mechanical” implies physicality, matter. And as I’ve said earlier, I think that raises problems avoided by having a non-physical entity.
I think we agree here. Though I’m not sure it makes sense to talk about a spiritual realm as a place, or even a dimension. If it exists my guess it is the “thing” that all the dimensions, energy, matter operate comfortably within.
I think that’s right. To clarify, a Prime Mover God 1) has no cause and 2) set everything else into existence. Whether it be with a distinct plan or a sneeze.
Then fair enough. If I end up being demeaning accidentally, please point it out. I’m generally not careful enough to avoid it or to notice not avoiding it.
Why, though? Which problems are avoided? The big one I can think of is the one I mentioned, that of existing in something.
This is just a general thought, and I could be way off-base, but it seems to me that your thoughts are generally along the lines of hypothetical defined concepts which you’ve added spiritual concepts on top off. I know you’ve said earlier that you don’t follow any particular religion, but it seems like that could actually be taken further; you’ve got answers which fulfil the defined requirements, and have then named them after those things which are generally considered to fulfil them, rather than out of an actual personal belief that that is the thing which fulfils them. I mean, that you call what you consider to be a likely Prime Mover God not because you necessarily believe it to be a god, but because it’s most often gods which are believed to fulfil the requirements of Prime Mover. That you call the spiritual whatever-it-may-be spiritual not because of a belief that it is necessarily spiritual precisely in nature, but because generally that which is considered outside of the physical world in that way is called spiritual. Is that at all accurate (And I apologise if it’s offensive)?
Well, it need not set everything else into existence. If the existence of one Prime Mover is possible, then two is likewise a possibility, with one further altering/creating everything else whilst not itself being a creation of the prior PM. I don’t want to get into the whole Occam’s Razor argument that seems to be going on about the likelihood of a plurality of gods, but it’s certainly a possibility, so I think really the only necessary definitionis 1).
Revenant, I don’t think it’s a problem. I’ve learned that if you wander into that territory it is usually accidental. I have no problem with you. Quite the opposite. I think you are one of the more civil debaters on these boards. Particularly when the topic may have an emotional component. And that is the real test.
In addition to the problem you cite, which I think is a substantial one, the way I think about it is that a physical manifestation would be preceded by a notion of that manifestation. So, any physical reality would first take the form of an idea of the manifestation in a mind of some sort. That’s the way I see it any way.
It’s not offensive. I think, as far as I think I understand what you’ve written, that that’s pretty accurate. I’m not so sure about the spiritual aspect, other than this Prime Mover/God would exist in what we would consider an extra-natural realm.
All of what you say here is absolutely possible. I am less interested in the nature of this God than I am the existence of him. That said, a plurality, to me, implies a sense of order, meaning the relationship between the entities. This points to, in my mind anyway, the possibility of a yet higher entity that is responsible for that order. Kind of like Zeus and Olympus. But I agree that there may well be multiple gods. I do think for the purpose of the discussion that interests me—is there a Prime Mover or not—a singular Prime Mover is the simpler explanation.
Oh, the “WWHY don’t you quit posting!” comeback? If you think I’m posting to persuade you, you’re mistaken
Not my omniscience - just the definition of Universe
No, there is only one null in this argument.
Not evidence - you are arguing that there is a need for a God as Prime Mover. I am arguing that there is not.
But I’m not trying to “prove” anything outside this Universe. You are. I’m saying you can’t.
I take it you didn’t keep your textbooks, then? Anyway, I’ve already focused on where I want - deductive logic can’t be called a complete system because MP is self-circular, so you can’t use it to prove that MP always holds in all universes. Hell, you AGREED that MP doesn’t always have to hold, but then you turn around and say DL will always hold. Great consistency there :rolleyes:
Cute, but doesn’t address my complaint.
So report me. I’m not the one who made with the veiled insults, remember? I’m telling you exactly where you’ve been wrong.
Well, “ignorant of the very definition of the term” is probably more accurate.
Yours, for not looking in a dictionary. Hell, the Wikipedia article on “Universe” is quite comprehensive. I’m surprised you haven’t read it yet.
I’ve been using the commonly-accepted definition of Universe as it used in science and cosmology. I don’t have to be clear, you have to be obtuse to mess that up.
It’s not an insult, it’s a description. If you don’t know that “Universe” means (roughly)“all of accesible space-time” then you are ignorant for the purposes of this discussion. Which your “Teleporter” remarks served as ample illustration of.
Because logic does work in this Universe, to settle arguments that (according to you) were strictly based on logic. I’m seeing now that actually arguing with you logically was probably a trap, as you either don’t understand the proofs offered to you, or you’re willfully ignoring them. That’s OK, there’s always the lurkers who can be persuaded.
Ther’s a Pit thread still open for insults about my wife, veiled as they are. Take it there.
I always wear my “I’m with Stupid” shirt when I’m posting on the Dope. Don’t you?
As a pig in shit.
No, I’m asking that you abandon the attempt to apply it where it doesn’t work
No, I’m assuming we can’t know
No, I’m assuming we can’t know about those dimensions either
Because it disagrees with the FACTS™
Because it disagrees with the FACTS™
No, it isn’t - you’ve been shown why you can’t have a reasonable expectation that causality will hold outside the Universe. To continue arguing the converse means you substantially disagree with the accepted definition of “Universe”. If that is the case, I wish you’d come right out and say so, I hate arguing with someoen who’s actually arguing semantics when I thought they were arghuing logically
THAT"S MY ENTIRE POINT
This is not consistent with your previous point - I am saying we do not know, you agree that we do not know, how can you then claim to know?
Because you’re trying to use your “thoughts” on it to PROVE your assumptions about a Prime Mover. I’m just pointing out that you have no logical valid reasoning to back up your statements about the necessity of a PM.
And I’ve pointed out that your objections are bullshit. Time is what it is.
You may be correct. But you can’t say with any certainty.makes youre argument about the NECESSITY of a Prime Mover wrong, though. I’m afraid “A Prime Mover is POSSIBLE” is not the same as “A Prime Mover is NECESSARY”. Your entire argument so far, all the acrimony and diversion, amounts to the first, when you really need to prove the latter. To jump from the first to the second is illogical, and just wishful thinking
The entire universe is curved, though.
This will only be significant in Flatland. I don’t see the relevance to other Universes, where you can’t say that spacetime even exists.
No, it’s a FACT™. It is built in to the defintion of our Universe
Not Time as we know it, no.
It doesn’t matter. Once again - for us, there is no “Outside our Universe”. It doesn’t exist in any meaningful way - we can never interact with it, we can only speculate.
Why, though? I mean, I can see why it would makes sense; that you need the concept of a thing before that thing can exist does sound reasonable. But I don’t see why it’s necessary.
Fair enough. This was less an argument more an attempt to understand where you’re coming from on this one, so good to know I was close I guess.
Sure, i’d agree with that. All I meant to point out was that it’s not a necessary requirement, even if it is a more likely one. And really, when it comes to the existence of Prime Movers, we’re generally ignorant enough about how that would work that i’m not really sure we can say the existence of one PM is more likely than the existence of more than one.
Let’s make this short and sweet, as I don’t enjoy the attitude you seem intent on bringing to this discussion. What you wrote here gets to the crux of the issue. To recap: My position is that there is a need for a PM. The reason I offer for this is the need to have a First Cause that doesn’t need it’s own cause. You bristle that I attribute causality, and the logic that goes with it, to anything not of our universe. I reply that the abstract tools that have served us well here—particularly in scientific discovery—would most likely be as valuable elsewhere. My reasoning for that is that they have proves so dependable here. That there is no certain instance where they have failed us. Still, I’ve said more than once in this very thread that I may, of course, be wrong, but that based on our history with logic, the more logical default position is that logic would be useful elsewhere. You disagree, throwing out FACTS that aren’t facts at all. You even admit I may, in fact, be correct, which would show that much of your facts are not facts. You say now I need to “prove” my position. If you don’t know that I can’t “prove” my position anymore than you can “prove” yours, our exchange has been even a greater waste of time than I feared.
Well, it appears to be necessary to me in that the more ordered or intelligent a thing is, the more it points to being the result of an intention. If we are talking about this quality as it relates to the PM, something that by definition, was not caused, then a non-physical entity seems to require one less step than a physical one. That’s how I’m able to wrap my head around it, anyway.
I think it was very helpful to the exchange. Thanks for going through the exercise.
Beyond having to choose a position if pressed and arriving at the position I did, I’d agree with that completely.
Take it to the Pit. That you now choose to frame things in terms of you being attacked and me being a jerk says you’re looking for a “stalemate by Mod” end to the discussion. That shouldn’t fly - I’ve kept my claims of your ignorance strictly to your use of definitions and faulty logic. Unlike you, I’ve said nothing about your family or you, personally, as oblique as you may make it. So “attitude” is fairly weak sauce.
With you so far…
…and here is where you lose me.
Is it, or is it not, a fact that this Universe, by the very definition of Universe, is a closed system of space-time? Yes or No.
That’s a particularly self-serving interpretation of what I’ve been saying. I’ve been saying we can’t know. NOT that we don’t know, but can’t know. So your correctness or not about Outside the Universe is irrelevant to what we CAN say.
No, I’m saying you CAN’T “prove” your position. It is unprovable - unfalsifiable - unscientific - illogical.
I DO know that you can’t prove your position. Since that’s all I’ve set out to prove, I’ve done my job. or, as I said before, QED.
So far, you haven’t actually addressed the fundamentally self-circular logical inconsistency inherent in your position. That, coupled with your misuse of the bounding terms of the very idea of “Universe” has given the lie to any claims of being the logical, reasonable one in this debate on your part. That you now turn to ad hominems says to me that you realise this.
False. Many, many highly ordered natural phenomena occur strictly as a result of physical laws. Like polygonal cracks, sorted beaches, snowflakes…
Intention is not necessary for order.
Nor, as Darwin showed, is it necessary for intelligence. Do you doubt the FACT™ of evolution too?
But all ordered and intelligent things are made up of less ordered, less intelligent, less complex things. We as humans are pretty complex, but a single human cell is considerably less so. A molecule of that cell, less so still. An atom of that molecule… you get the picture.
To me, the concept of a Prime Mover that creates all of being at once seems less plausible to me than the idea of a Prime Mover that created all only indirectly. To go with your argument here (or at least what I think your argument is), the most likely Prime Mover would not be a god-analogue, directly causing everything with a metaphorical snap of the fingers - a necessarily complex being - and more like the particle-analogue, not creating all of existence at once but rather through chain reactions.
:rolleyes: Look at the rest of that passage. I was talking about a PM, something that by definition couldn’t have achieved order through improvement over time. Snowflakes and eyeballs have a history. A PM does not, except, possibly as Himself.
And you’re QED is as presumptive and erroneous now as it was way back when I first commented on it. You want to know why, feel free to review the thread. And while you’re at it, try to keep track of who displayed a more combative attitude and who got shitty.
But doesn’t that support my position. That if a PM is made up of building blocks, so to speak, then by definition, wouldn’t he NOT be the PM? Where did the building blocks come from? And we start anew…
Either way. I personally hold to the particle-analog. Though if he could do that I wouldn’t be surprised if he could do the other. But I think it is a billion times more difficult to explore the nature of the PM than it is the fact or non-fact of his existence.
Oh, don’t try to play the definition game with me - you said exactly what I quoted, what you were talking about doesn’t matter. You specifically linked “ordered” with “necessity”. I merely showed this wasn’t the case.
All you’re saying here is that a PM is a PM, as defined. That’s OK, no problem - but where you cross the line is with the “necessarily” - this isn’t something you can define away, it’s something you have to prove. You can’t assume an ordered PM is logically necessary when that’s the thing you’re actually trying to prove. That’s the very model of a circular argument.
Yet curiously, you have failed to attack the logic of any of my arguments. Or defended the charge of self-circularity. Posting a large wiki link and asking me to do the defending for you doesn’t count.
I’ve looked, I still can’t see you defending extraUniversal causality with any vigour. All I see is “You can’t say it isn’t!”, which is the intellectual equivalent of “no, u!”.
“Combative attitude” in a debate is not the same as “getting shitty”. If there’s no logical rigour to your argument or trace of relevant scholarship in your handling of terms, pointing it out is hardly “getting shitty” or an ad hominem. I’d save that expression for irrelevant oblique personal insults and foul language, myself.
Not necessarily. I mean, if you think of the Prime Mover as a god, then it too has seperate building blocks. At the very least, if the Prime Mover has intentions, then we can point out two seperate parts of it; it has a personality, and it has the intentions arising from that personality. A god isn’t a single, monolithic entity.
But my point was less that a PM may be made up of many blocks, but that while a complex and organised thing may imply intent to create it directly as it is, that it may be made of many constituent simple parts implies the possibility of a similarly less complex intender. The universe is a complex place. But a single particle is manifestly less so. I’m just saying that the universe as a complex thing implying the existence of intension only works if we assume it was created as it is. What if, rather, the existence of the universe was the result of something less complex - and that in turn the result of something less complex - and so on and so forth until eventually the beginning of everything was a (relatively) simple particle, which does not imply intention in the creation of it (or at least, to a lesser extent). I guess what i’m trying to say is that the complexity of a Mover as evidence for an intention-having Prime Mover very much depends on whether it is the *Second * Mover or not; is it a direct creation?
Put another way (because I really think i’m not explaining myself very well); a charitable organisation implies that the being that put events into motion to create it had an intention to start it. And it may be that the person at the beginning of the creation is directly there; a rich man donates money to create it. Simple. But what if, instead, we say that a thousand years ago a man had given some loose change to a beggar, inspiring an act of charity in someone else, that inspiring further charity, perhaps a movement, until eventually the idea of a charitable organisation enters our rich man’s head. The guy at the beginning of the chain had no intentions other than giving away some change; that the charitable organisation’s complexity implies intention certainly seems likely, but it wasn’t the guy at the very beginning’s intention.
Ha, I would have said the opposite, to be honest. At least in some cases of the nature of the PM it is posited things that we could actually understand. The whole concept of a PM, for me anyway, is just something I don’t get at all.
I have no clue. I’ve tried many times to understand quantum mechanics, noncausality and all that kind of thing, and i’ve simply failed entirely. I don’t understand it. Likewise, I can’t get my head around the spiritual or other-worldly explanations - to me it sounds like just saying it happens, without explaining why. So really whether the explanation given is scientific or religious or whatever you care to name, it is an area in which I really and honestly can’t have or do have an opinion.
My view in general is that it only has a consequential effect on us if the Prime Mover has other things to do beyond creating us, whether it’s a particle or a god. If it doesn’t? Then it is an area which as much as I might like to try and know the truth, I simply aren’t able to, though I don’t begrudge smarter people than me trying to figure it out. I’m just happy to debate the simpler things just for the sake of trying to work with the bits I do get. Well, think I get, anyway.
I think we get into even shakier territory when we attempt to attribute human characteristics to God. And I don’t see why god couldn’t be a “monolithic entity”.
I think I’m following you here, but I think you’re just moving the Prime Mover further back. Ultimately, you get to the real PM. I do agree that if there are multiple stages to creation of the universe, that as you look further and further to the actual origin/PM that things will appear to get simpler, to ultimately, you get to pure intention with no physicality. I say “appear” because I don’t think it makes sense to say that the closer you get to the actual PM the simpler the entity gets. That would mean that the actual PM would be the simplest entity. I think that would be true physically, but only physically.
Yeah, it’s slippery stuff. The interest for me is that I view this as Step 1. I get quite annoyed when people conflate religion and god in discussions. They are two completely separate things. You can only get to Step 2 after you get through Step 1. And Step 2 opens the door to what is this God, what does he want/expect of us, if anything, and what we should do about it. If people want to explore that, fine. If people want to argue against a specific religion, or religion in general, fine. But they shouldn’t think that if there argument in those areas are successful that it has anything to do with God.
May not be the clearest of English, but the meaning is clear. I was focusing on the linked ideas, what the subject of those ideas was doesn’t matter. As well to talk about the intentionality of a rock as the PM, when it’s complexity/intelligence and necessity you’re linking. Again - the subject doesn’t matter, it’s the predicate that matters.
And - that you only quoted part of my reply makes a mockery of the following:
since I explained myself immediately after the quote. But hey, cherry pick away, since you still haven’t had the wherewithal to defend the circularity of your basic argument, or answer a simple Yes/No question, I suppose that we’ll be playing semantics exclusively from now on. I can do that.
