Post Reply
Page 49 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 ... 76 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Hatcher's Proof of the Existence of God
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 11:02PM #481
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,760

Apr 5, 2012 -- 5:02PM, MUH wrote:


Lilwabbit -


What about Relativity theory?  It stipulates that no causal influences can travel faster than light, which would seem to rule out the possibility of time-independent causality.




Relativity theory only addresses one kind of physical causality. It says nothing at all about total causality which is what Hatcher is discussing.

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 11:12PM #482
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,760

Apr 5, 2012 -- 5:01PM, jesus2point3 wrote:



 


I would agree that the statement "entity G caused time" as being a logical statement. Therefore, I need not prove to you that it is illogical . . .


. . . but I would disagree with the statement that it contains a 'time-independent causality'.  The word 'caused' is a verb of grammatical tense. If you have the time, would you please explain why you believe the statement "entity G caused time" is 'time-independent'?




You're now confusing syntax with semantics. The grammatical past tense of "caused" in the statement "entity G caused time" doesn't change the meaning of the "caused" into a causation within time. Just like the grammatical past tense of "had" in the statement "I had better not screw this up" doesn't make it semantically a statement of the past. The semantic content of the statement "entity G caused time" makes the causation in question logically time-independent. It makes the perfectly logical suggestion that something can be the cause of time itself. The same semantic content can be expressed with a causal connective → as Hatcher does. In other words "G → T" where → denotes existential causation. In this latter formulation the statement avoids all grammatical tenses while expressing the exact same meaning. It avoids tenses because it is not employing a natural language but a formal language.

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 11:34PM #483
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,760

Apr 5, 2012 -- 3:45PM, amcolph wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:47PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:36PM, amcolph wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:17PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


 


It's alternatives are more questionable simply due to low mathematical probability. A consistent pattern implies an underlying structure or law.




Which may not be identical to the "law" we codify nor even inherently knowable.



Knowable by likelihood, yes. Just as most widely accepted scientific explanations are. Identical to human law, of course not.




I meant that whatever propensity governs the universe may be inherently unknowable and resemble our inductive conclusions (our 'laws of nature') only by concidence.




All accepted scientific theories are inductive conclusions. But their acceptance is based on selecting the most plausible of competing theories, and the one with greatest predictive power. In this case, it is far more implausible that identical patterns of behaviour throughout the universe are mere chance-effects. Hence a law is safely induced. According to the hypothetico-deductive method of systematic science, a good theory must be able to make predictions. Physical laws are theoretical blanket generalizations based on limited observation. However, their predictive power has proven almost unfailing despite the fact that the bulk of the universe remains directly unobserved. Whenever a new observation is made, it unfailingly conforms with some known physical laws. It is therefore plausibly assumed that an underlying non-visible structure or pattern "governs" the universe. That's why they call it "law".


I am still awaiting novel arguments that directly address Hatcher's errors. We're all going around the mulberry bush and regurgitating earlier debates on this thread. As Jesus2 pointed out, even our little foray into physics and physical laws is irrelevant for disproving Hatcher. Hatcher addresses the very cause of all physical laws, mass-energy, spacetime, etc. Not their mechanics.


I'll respond accordingly.

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 12:06AM #484
Ken
Posts: 33,860

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:50PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:35PM, Ken wrote:

Things behave as they do because of their physical properties.



You're inventing your own hocus pocus science. What inherent properties cause physical systems of all sizes to have energy-dispersals towards cooler bodies? Give me a straight scientifically grounded answer and not one of your usual faith-based claims which you present as fact. Your statements tend to lack either logical argumentation or reliable citation, often both.



Try asking me nicely.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 12:10AM #485
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,760

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:06AM, Ken wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:50PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:35PM, Ken wrote:

Things behave as they do because of their physical properties.



You're inventing your own hocus pocus science. What inherent properties cause physical systems of all sizes to have energy-dispersals towards cooler bodies? Give me a straight scientifically grounded answer and not one of your usual faith-based claims which you present as fact. Your statements tend to lack either logical argumentation or reliable citation, often both.



Try asking me nicely.



Try answering questions and not being evasive and vulnerable.

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 12:14AM #486
Ken
Posts: 33,860

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:10AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:06AM, Ken wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:50PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:35PM, Ken wrote:

Things behave as they do because of their physical properties.



You're inventing your own hocus pocus science. What inherent properties cause physical systems of all sizes to have energy-dispersals towards cooler bodies? Give me a straight scientifically grounded answer and not one of your usual faith-based claims which you present as fact. Your statements tend to lack either logical argumentation or reliable citation, often both.



Try asking me nicely.



Try answering questions and not being evasive and vulnerable.



I meant it. Ask me nicely.

Moderated by rangerken on Apr 06, 2012 - 01:15AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 12:18AM #487
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,760

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:14AM, Ken wrote:


Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:10AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:06AM, Ken wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:50PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:35PM, Ken wrote:

Things behave as they do because of their physical properties.



You're inventing your own hocus pocus science. What inherent properties cause physical systems of all sizes to have energy-dispersals towards cooler bodies? Give me a straight scientifically grounded answer and not one of your usual faith-based claims which you present as fact. Your statements tend to lack either logical argumentation or reliable citation, often both.



Try asking me nicely.



Try answering questions and not being evasive and vulnerable.



I meant it. Ask me nicely.




Practice what you preach, Ken.

Moderated by rangerken on Apr 06, 2012 - 01:14AM
"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 1:12AM #488
MUH
Posts: 96


PSR is always relevant when discussing the cause of all existing entities (V) or the lack thereof. It is an existential (total) causality while the material conditional doesn't discuss causality nor existence at all. It discusses the logical implications of linguistic propositions which is something quite different. Have you studied formal logic beyond the basics? I think we're already veering off the actual argument. Material conditional is not an ontological principle. It is one of propositional logic and hence deals with the logical relationships between formal propositions (relations between formalized linguistic statements, not real phenomena). It is quite irrelevant to any discussion on total causality. Causality is concerned with causes of existing phenomena.




Actually, it is quite relevant in this case because it goes back to the question: what is existence?  What does it mean for a phenomenon to "exist"?  The MUH says that all existence is abstract mathematical existence so that formal systems are what is actually "real" at the highest level.  We perceive our universe as "physically real" because we belong to the system and "see" it from the inside.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 2:21AM #489
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,760

MUH,


I'm a Platonist myself. True or ideal abstract forms are what's ultimately real and the rest is just their appearance in infinite different forms. It doesn't change Hatcher's argument one bit. By the way, he agreed with your ontology. Hatcher was listed as one of the eight Platonist philosophers of the latter half of the 20th century by Encyclopedie Philosophique Universelle.


I'll surely respond when new challenges emerge that directly prove a flaw in Hatcher's premises or reasoning. Please don't be offended if I don't react to every post. It's a time-management issue, not personal. You have an open and constructive approach as well as a discerning mind.


Kindly,


Wabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 5:58AM #490
jesus2point3
Posts: 248

Apr 5, 2012 -- 11:12PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 5:01PM, jesus2point3 wrote:



 


I would agree that the statement "entity G caused time" as being a logical statement. Therefore, I need not prove to you that it is illogical . . .


. . . but I would disagree with the statement that it contains a 'time-independent causality'.  The word 'caused' is a verb of grammatical tense. If you have the time, would you please explain why you believe the statement "entity G caused time" is 'time-independent'?




You're now confusing syntax with semantics. The grammatical past tense of "caused" in the statement "entity G caused time" doesn't change the meaning of the "caused" into a causation within time. Just like the grammatical past tense of "had" in the statement "I had better not screw this up" doesn't make it semantically a statement of the past. The semantic content of the statement "entity G caused time" makes the causation in question logically time-independent. It makes the perfectly logical suggestion that something can be the cause of time itself. The same semantic content can be expressed with a causal connective → as Hatcher does. In other words "G → T" where → denotes existential causation. In this latter formulation the statement avoids all grammatical tenses while expressing the exact same meaning. It avoids tenses because it is not employing a natural language but a formal language.



I thank you for attempting to answer my question, but I do not consider it valid. Grammatically speaking, you've used a poor example to state your case. The word 'had' is indeed the past tense of 'have', but you didn't have to use that word in the statement. In reality, 'screw' is the word that indicates the tense of the complete sentence. 'I (had) better not' is merely a statement of wishful thinking. Similar to the words 'hope' & 'InshaAllah'.


They merely modify the statement - with honesty. 


Once again, I agree that "G → T" expresses the same meaning as "G caused T", but in my mind they are both time dependent. The arrow indicates action, and actions happen in time & space. Let us not forget that in reality we are part of "the totality of existence, everything there is". Please try to remember that you are a component of the system under discussion, and there will come a time when you will know what it means to be 'time-independent'. God Willing, that won't happen for a while, my friend.


G=T would be a statement void of tense, and both God & Time are conceptual realities that have no physical manefestation in this existence we both share.


Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 49 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 ... 76 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook