Post Reply
Page 55 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 ... 76 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Hatcher's Proof of the Existence of God
2 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 8:20AM #541
Blü
Posts: 24,653

Lilwabbit


This is getting much simpler.


Hatcher supposes we need a G.  I don't.


But suppose we need a G.


The argument as unfolded in this thread boils down to your supernatural G and a physical explanation for which energy is easily the strongest candidate.


When F1fan invokes Occam's razor, it's a no-brainer - the imaginary candidate god is vastly more complicated than the real candidate energy.  Just for starters, your G has no description and no evidence supports its existence.


If you care to identify - specify - your G in physics, that is, in reality, I'll withdraw my supernatural remark.  Go on, surprise me.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 10:17AM #542
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,817

Apr 12, 2012 -- 8:20AM, Blü wrote:


Lilwabbit


This is getting much simpler.



Actually from my perspective it's been rather simple all along. It comes with the territory of having no burden to explain everything as E. G is favoured by the Razor. Read further.


Apr 12, 2012 -- 8:20AM, Blü wrote:

Hatcher supposes we need a G.



No he doesn't. He concludes there is a G by supposing that something exists and by also supposing logic as a valuable tool for reasoning.


Apr 12, 2012 -- 8:20AM, Blü wrote:


The argument as unfolded in this thread boils down to your supernatural G and a physical explanation for which energy is easily the strongest candidate.


When F1fan invokes Occam's razor, it's a no-brainer - the imaginary candidate god is vastly more complicated than the real candidate energy.



Oh really? You can't even produce a simple plausible explanation of how energy causes entropy, let alone a complex one. In fact, you consistently evade the question. And you still expect me to think that there's a simple explanation for energy explaining all existence if it can't even explain entropy?


Apr 12, 2012 -- 8:20AM, Blü wrote:

Just for starters, your G has no description and no evidence supports its existence.



G is quite adequately described by Hatcher as a self-caused non-composite cause of all existence. Your claim is far more radical and complex. Firstly, you are claiming that a demonstrably law-dependent phenomenon E somehow exists independently (by itself) and that it somehow causes all other existing things. However, there's no evidence that energy exists by itself and causes all other things. You are attaching new god-like properties to a known phenomenon E. There's ample evidence that energy exists and that it disperses towards colder bodies due to the second law of thermodynamics. But there's simply zero evidence that energy exists by itself and causes all other existing things. There's only your fantastical and speculative claim to that effect. I'm only advancing the simpler theory that those properties need not be forcibly shoved into energy and explained in a complicated way as its attributes. Rather they characterize a stand-alone entity which is the cause of energy. Secondly, if you subscribe to quantum theory, your candidate E is quantized and hence extremely composite. Therefore, G is far simpler than E since it is perfectly non-composite.


My position is far more simple and tenable since I am not tying my hands to employ physical terms for explaining rather wondrous properties that remain absolutely foreign to the amassed observation of all physics throughout the centuries (i.e. the properties of existing by itself and causing all existing things). I'm simply assuming that wondrous properties foreign to physics belong to a wondrous entity foreign to physics.

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 11:01AM #543
F1fan
Posts: 11,140

Apr 12, 2012 -- 10:17AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


G is quite adequately described by Hatcher as a self-caused non-composite cause of all existence. Your claim is far more radical and complex.



Assuming a G isn't complex?


Hatcher is describing an idea, not reality.  You are framing the necessity for a G by insisting that:


"Such a magical and unobserved property for energy is only theorized by the atheist without realizing the wildly conjectural and mystical nature of such a theory. Yet energy exists. In brief, either energy self-exists or something makes it exist.


To self-exist energy would have to have an infinitely ancient capacity to generate its own existence."


Firstly, you are claiming that a demonstrably law-dependent phenomenon E somehow exists independently (by itself) and that it somehow causes all other existing things.



Can you show anything else existing that could cause E?  And since E can't be created or destroyed, why assume E was created?  All I am saying is that we can verify E exists, that it can't be created, that there is no evidence for a G, nor any manner in which a G could create E.


However, there's no evidence that energy exists by itself and causes all other things.



So, if you want to throw out anything for which there is no evidence, let's throw out G since there is no evidence for it.  OK?


You are attaching new god-like properties to a known phenomenon E.



As opposed to the actual god G?  No, you are describing E in such a way that makes a G necessary.  In reality it isn't necessary.  If G is just some natural phenomenon that acts without magic, why can't E?


There's ample evidence that energy exists and that it disperses towards colder bodies due to the second law of thermodynamics. But there's simply zero evidence that energy exists by itself and causes all other existing things. There's only your fantastical and speculative claim to that effect. I'm only advancing the simpler theory that those properties need not be forcibly shoved into energy and explained in a complicated way as its attributes. Rather they characterize a stand-alone entity which is the cause of energy. Secondly, if you subscribe to quantum theory, your candidate E is quantized and hence extremely composite. Therefore, G is far simpler than E since it is perfectly non-composite.



It only seems conceptually easier as you think it and type it.  It isn't easier in reality since there is no evidence for a G, nor that E exists the way you describe it. 


My position is far more simple and tenable since I am not tying my hands to employ physical terms for explaining rather wondrous properties that remain absolutely foreign to the amassed observation of all physics throughout the centuries (i.e. the properties of existing by itself and causing all existing things). I'm simply assuming that wondrous properties foreign to physics belong to a wondrous entity foreign to physics.




It's more simple to your mind because you want there to be a god and magic.  Poof.  Easy answer.  But your views don't describe reality, and only creates more problems, like: where is G in reality?  If it exists, how can you know it created anything?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 6:43PM #544
Iwantamotto
Posts: 8,043

G/E:  It (they?) bring(s) good things to life.


 


:)

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 4:18AM #545
Blü
Posts: 24,653

Lilwabbit


Oh really? You can't even produce a simple plausible explanation of how energy causes entropy, let alone a complex one.


I explained how energy produced entropy.  You didn't challenge my description of the process.

Instead you objected that I hadn't explained why high energy moved towards low energy and not vice versa.  The answer is the same for the whole of physics - we know that's what energy does because we never observe it doing otherwise.  All conclusions in science are inductive.  And you're old enough to know that this doesn't change even if you say 'weak induction' in  a sneering tone.  Inductive conclusions are the best reality will give you.  Induction is the only way we know our maths models are correct instead of just pretty.

The same is true of Hatcher.  He has to show his argument has meaning and validity in the observable world.  Theists are very bad at that, of course.


it would not prove that causality must always involve transfer of energy.


Same answer.


I accept your terms. As I said, your terms apply to some causal links. Not all. Mine apply to all. You seem to confuse some with all. Hence the weak induction indictment.


Do you mean you accept my description of the billiard balls as correct? If not, describe the transaction in what seems to you the correct way.

When that's cleared up, what further example shall we compare?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 6:59AM #546
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,817

Apr 13, 2012 -- 4:18AM, Blü wrote:


Lilwabbit


Oh really? You can't even produce a simple plausible explanation of how energy causes entropy, let alone a complex one.


I explained how energy produced entropy.  You didn't challenge my description of the process.



Yes I did. You only re-described entropy, not its causes. After my challenge you began to evade the question. I can only conclude that you're unable to provide a scientifically grounded explanation of the cause of entropy by appeal to energy-transfer. Remember, your task of explanation concerns the cause of entropy, not the process of entropy. The process of entropy is the effect. Unless and until you see the difference, there's frankly very little substantive to discuss and your claim that causation always involves energy-transfer remains seriously challenged. Your claim would qualify as a strong induction only if no counter-examples to your formula existed nor could be reasonably expected. Now it remains a weak induction. No sneer intended. If you want, I can provide you more physical causalities that physics cannot explain in terms of energy-transfer or time-delay. I actually wanted to be easy on you.


Kind regards,


LilWabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 11:15AM #547
redshifted
Posts: 2,283

T: "Why is the sky blue?"


A: "Because the atmosphere scatters light to the blue end of the spectrum."


T: "No, but WHY?"


A: "Because that's just the way it works."


T: "BUT WHY?!?!"


A: "Um..."


T: "I know why... because G did it! G really likes the color blue."




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 11:33AM #548
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 12, 2012 -- 6:43PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


G/E:  It (they?) bring(s) good things to life.


 


:)




You smart aleck!


(Just giggled so hard, coffee shot out my nose.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 8:59PM #549
Blü
Posts: 24,653

Lilwabbit


You only re-described entropy, not its causes.


You reject observation and induction as a basis for explanatory statements about reality.

Having done that, on what basis do you say anything needs a cause?  

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 11:40PM #550
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,817

Apr 13, 2012 -- 8:59PM, Blü wrote:


Lilwabbit


You only re-described entropy, not its causes.


You reject observation and induction as a basis for explanatory statements about reality.



In science, an observation and induction of a universal phenomenon does not qualify as an explanation of its cause.


But thanks for trying.


Kind regards,


LilWabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 55 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 ... 76 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook