Post Reply
Page 53 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 ... 76 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Hatcher's Proof of the Existence of God
2 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 1:00AM #521
F1fan
Posts: 10,716

Apr 10, 2012 -- 9:13PM, singinginthewires wrote:


      In a humorous vein, when discussing the existence of God with an atheist friend of mine (I have had truly good friends who do not believe in God, over time) I suggested that if God did not exist, then the denial of the existence of God would be an impossibility. 




Atheists don't deny a god's existence.  They deny CLAIMS that a god exists.  Or that multiple gods exist.  These claims are made by fallible humans.  Don't forget we are dealing with ideas about gods, and humans making claims about these ideas, not actual phenomenon.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 2:54AM #522
Blü
Posts: 24,037

Lilwabbit


It only accounts for some causal "transactions".


Unless and until you demonstrate an exception, you have no basis for saying that.


a sufficient reason for an entity to exist


Is 'reason' a synonym for 'cause' here too?

If so, how can any cause be insufficient?  If it has any effect, then that's what it's the cause of.  If it doesn't then it's not a cause.

If not, how is 'reason' defined?


Causalities in nature cannot be directly observed.


Under my definition they can.


They can only be hypothesized


How may the hypothesis be tested?  What test will show that your hypothesis is a more accurate statement about reality than mine?


If A → B holds, then it can never occur that an observation of A holds without the observation of B holding.


If it doesn't have an effect it's not a cause.  If it doesn't have a cause, it's not an effect.  That follows from the definitions.



If ever we observe an instance of A without B


We can't.  Without B it's not A.  It's not correct to call phenomena will no effects 'causes'.  Without A it's not B.  It's not correct to call uncaused phenomena 'effects'.




Now let's try an example, the collision of billiard balls.

My decription -

Ball A rolls across the table.  Ball B is stationary on the table.  A strikes B.  Part of the energy representing the momentum of A passes from A to B in the collision.  That transfer has the effect of slowing A and accelerating B.  The transfer of energy from A is the 'cause' and the deceleration of A and acceleration of B are the effect.

How do you otherwise describe this transaction?  (We can discuss other transactions later.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 6:22AM #523
jesus2point3
Posts: 248

Apr 11, 2012 -- 1:00AM, F1fan wrote:


Apr 10, 2012 -- 9:13PM, singinginthewires wrote:


      In a humorous vein, when discussing the existence of God with an atheist friend of mine (I have had truly good friends who do not believe in God, over time) I suggested that if God did not exist, then the denial of the existence of God would be an impossibility. 




Atheists don't deny a god's existence.  They deny CLAIMS that a god exists.  Or that multiple gods exist.  These claims are made by fallible humans.  Don't forget we are dealing with ideas about gods, and humans making claims about these ideas, not actual phenomenon.



In reality what you describe would be an agnostic, of which I claimed to be one for many years.
When the truth struck me out of the blue, I didn't know what to do, but I did recognize a few of the signs. I remained an agnostic who knew the truth that set me free - until I gained additional knowledge.


People have many ideas about the reality they perceive between their ears, while the light that they see with their own two eyes - confuses the hell out of them. Many imagine a world that's never been, as they attempt to manipulate reality into a heaven on earth. Or is it the utopia they believe is just around the corner?


They HOPE for CHANGE in all the wrong places. Some believe in all sorts of gods, some believe they've been chosen by one, while others believe a man can be one.


Stephen is Hawking Nothing as his god, while he apologizes to those who believe in one. In reality it's got me ROTFLMFAO! He's got this idea in his head that Nothing created everything, while in my mind God is reason. I've logically concluded the existence of God, and the word I use is ALLAH, while Stephen has logically concluded the existence of God, but the word he uses is Nothing.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 8:29AM #524
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,761

Apr 11, 2012 -- 2:54AM, Blü wrote:


Lilwabbit


It only accounts for some causal "transactions".


Unless and until you demonstrate an exception, you have no basis for saying that.



I already did. And I would have a logical basis nonetheless.

Apr 11, 2012 -- 2:54AM, Blü wrote:


a sufficient reason for an entity to exist


Is 'reason' a synonym for 'cause' here too?

If so, how can any cause be insufficient?  If it has any effect, then that's what it's the cause of.  If it doesn't then it's not a cause.



Some basics on necessary and sufficient causality.


Apr 11, 2012 -- 2:54AM, Blü wrote:


Causalities in nature cannot be directly observed.


Under my definition they can.



Prove it.


Apr 11, 2012 -- 2:54AM, Blü wrote:


If A → B holds, then it can never occur that an observation of A holds without the observation of B holding.


If it doesn't have an effect it's not a cause. If it doesn't have a cause, it's not an effect.  That follows from the definitions.



Very good.


Apr 11, 2012 -- 2:54AM, Blü wrote:


If ever we observe an instance of A without B


We can't.  Without B it's not A.  It's not correct to call phenomena will no effects 'causes'.  Without A it's not B.  It's not correct to call uncaused phenomena 'effects'.



Very good.


Apr 11, 2012 -- 2:54AM, Blü wrote:



Now let's try an example, the collision of billiard balls.

My decription -

Ball A rolls across the table.  Ball B is stationary on the table.  A strikes B.  Part of the energy representing the momentum of A passes from A to B in the collision.  That transfer has the effect of slowing A and accelerating B.  The transfer of energy from A is the 'cause' and the deceleration of A and acceleration of B are the effect.

How do you otherwise describe this transaction?  (We can discuss other transactions later.)




Heh, you're still perpetrating the fallacy of weak induction. Examples of causalities involving energy-transfer are no proof that all causalities involve energy-transfer. Counter-examples have already been provided and they remain unrefuted.

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 10:15AM #525
Blü
Posts: 24,037

Lilwabbit


I already did.


Quote me the part in your link that gives a counter-example.  The only one I recall from you was entropy, which is not a counter-example, as I showed


Some basics on necessary and sufficient causality.


I ask again:

Is 'reason' a synonym for 'cause' here too?

If so, how can any cause be insufficient?  If it has any effect, then that's what it's the cause of.  If it doesn't then it's not a cause.


Prove it.


My billiards example is a demonstration of it.  Hatcher says his argument will satisfy materialists, so we're talking reality, not armchairs here, remember.


Heh, you're still perpetrating the fallacy of weak induction. Examples of causalities involving energy-transfer are no proof that all causalities involve energy-transfer.


Your argument has to hold up in reality so it can't be a true statement about reality until you provide confirmation by demonstration.  

So describe the billiard-ball transaction in your terms so I can see how they differ from mine.

If you can't, just say, I can't.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 10:35AM #526
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,761

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:15AM, Blü wrote:


Lilwabbit


I already did.


Quote me the part in your link that gives a counter-example.  The only one I recall from you was entropy, which is not a counter-example, as I showed.



You utterly failed to show how energy-transfer occurs in the cause of entropy. In fact, you repeatedly evaded all requests for further elaboration.



Some basics on necessary and sufficient causality.


I ask again:

Is 'reason' a synonym for 'cause' here too?

If so, how can any cause be insufficient?  If it has any effect, then that's what it's the cause of.  If it doesn't then it's not a cause.



My answer implicitly agreed on the synonymity. The link I provided explains sufficiency and, by extension, insufficiency adequately. There's no need for me to break it down for you. If you don't understand it, why don't you say so.



Prove it.


My billiards example is a demonstration of it.



Your billiards example doesn't involve an observation of a causal link. It involves an inference of a causal link between billiard-balls, based on the logical principles I just mentioned. If A → B holds, then it can never occur that an observation of A holds without the observation of B holding. We infer that A (ball P strikes ball Q) causes B (Q moves and P slows down) after we've made repeated observations that B seems to happen right after A. However, it is logically possible that all of this is just an incredible coincidence and B just happens to occur right after A without any causal connection whatsoever. After repeated experiments however we make a strong induction that a causal link must exist, just as after repeated experiments physicists make the strong induction that universally applicable physical laws exist which determine the behaviour of energy (without any energy-transfer and time-delay whatsoever).



Heh, you're still perpetrating the fallacy of weak induction. Examples of causalities involving energy-transfer are no proof that all causalities involve energy-transfer.


Your argument has to hold up in reality so it can't be a true statement about reality until you provide confirmation by demonstration.



Already done. And your weak induction remains as weak as weak inductions always have.  

So describe the billiard-ball transaction in your terms so I can see how they differ from mine.



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.

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 11:35AM #527
F1fan
Posts: 10,716

Apr 11, 2012 -- 6:22AM, jesus2point3 wrote:

In reality what you describe would be an agnostic, of which I claimed to be one for many years.



I don't see what difference it makes what position the non-theist happens to be.  If a person hears claims about gods from others, and is not convinced those claims are correct, then that non-theist could be an atheist or agnostic.  To my mind the difference between to two is generally that an atheist has pondered the possibility of gods existing and is comfortable with stating they are not convinced they exist.  Agnostics tend to be defined by not being sure either way, which to me implies they haven't really thought through the issue.  We could say that all theists and all non-theists have room to continue pondering the subject, as there is always room for more consideration.  


There's an argument to be made that agnostics are the more open minded, as atheists and theists are fairly certain they are correct in their assessments about the question of gods existing, while agnostics are still thinking.


Still, we are dealing with concepts of gods, not actual gods.  That fact is an advantage for non-theists, and a liability for theists.  I see theists defend their beliefs by ignoring the fact that we are dealing with concepts, and get off into a direction of experience.  the interesting thing is that theists never have experiences with gods they haven't heard about from others.  Hindus don't experience Jesus, only those who have had the idea of Jesus introduced to them.  That is suspicious.  That casts doubt on the claim that humans (with vivid imaginations) are experiencing an actual Jesus, or Hindu gods for that matter.


When the truth struck me out of the blue, I didn't know what to do, but I did recognize a few of the signs. I remained an agnostic who knew the truth that set me free - until I gained additional knowledge.



I will bet it was "truth" that you were exposed to by other humans. 


People have many ideas about the reality they perceive between their ears, while the light that they see with their own two eyes - confuses the hell out of them. Many imagine a world that's never been, as they attempt to manipulate reality into a heaven on earth. Or is it the utopia they believe is just around the corner?



Indeed.  The perception by the human brain of ordinary sensory data can be distorted and skewed, and we have to subject how we make sense of sensory data with careful assessment.  This illustrates how much more confusing what we imagine is true is assessed.  Our fears and anxiety can motivate us to believe all sorts of things in order to find a comfortable state of mind.  Dealing with reality is hard, and we humans face a huge temptation to use our abstract mind to buffer reality, and create illusions.  We have to be careful to not become dependent on those illusions, as we will have a veil of illusion that will distort any chance we have to perceive reality as accurately as possible.  To my mind a belief in a god will distort reality significantly.


They HOPE for CHANGE in all the wrong places. Some believe in all sorts of gods, some believe they've been chosen by one, while others believe a man can be one.



Yes, and how much of any of that reflects reality?  There is so much temptation to fall into a reliance on these illusions.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 11:51AM #528
F1fan
Posts: 10,716

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:35AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Your billiards example doesn't involve an observation of a causal link. It involves an inference of a causal link between billiard-balls, based on the logical principles I just mentioned. If A → B holds, then it can never occur that an observation of A holds without the observation of B holding. We infer that A (ball P strikes ball Q) causes B (Q moves and P slows down) after we've made repeated observations that B seems to happen right after A. However, it is logically possible that all of this is just an incredible coincidence and B just happens to occur right after A without any causal connection whatsoever. After repeated experiments however we make a strong induction that a causal link must exist, just as after repeated experiments physicists make the strong induction that universally applicable physical laws exist which determine the behaviour of energy (without any energy-transfer and time-delay whatsoever).



Then how does this not apply to Hatcher?  If hatcher claims G → E, how do we not apply your statements above (to a testable scenario of cause and effect) that E existing is not just coincidental of G existing?  This assumes G exists, of course.  the advanatge above is that we can verify that both A and B exist.  In hatcher's proof he can only verify that E exists and assumes G is the cause.  How do you propose we do experiments to see if G → E is actual causation?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 1:20PM #529
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,761

Apr 11, 2012 -- 12:52AM, F1fan wrote:


Where did the "stuff" for E come from? Magic?


G seems a problem in this argument.  E always existing is less problematic.





Actually E existing by itself is a far more magical argument. By stating thus you are inadvertently advancing a radical claim that energy has the capacity of self-existence. It is equivalent to claiming that energy not only disperses towards colder bodies in compliance with the laws of thermodynamics (which is the main known behaviour of energy), but that additionally it can perform the amazing feat of generating existence, namely its own. Nothing of the sort has ever been observed in nature. 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. If so, scientists would have by now observed energy increasing rather than remaining perfectly conserved as modern physics state. (Even virtual particles are formed on borrowed vacuum energy rather than self-existing.)


It is far less problematic to assume that such a complete and absolute property as generating existence belongs to a complete and absolute entity G rather than a provably dependent entity E. In either case, we're advancing a conjecture. If, on the other hand, you contend that energy doesn't self-exist, nor is it made to exist, but it simply has no reason to exist, then by right it wouldn't exist.


Please think about the foregoing points rationally before dismissing them due to atheist bias. I will respond accordingly if you prove in your response not to have misunderstood these points.

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 2:37PM #530
MUH
Posts: 96

Lilwabbit - 


I am still curious as to whether you believe G to have "caused" the system of first order logic.  I ask because it is relevant to the MUH we were talking about.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 53 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 ... 76 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook