BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME.

"Begin at the beginning,and go on till you come to the end: then stop." (Lewis Carroll, 1832-1896)

Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked."Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat."I don't know," Alice answered."Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

"So long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

"All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. "Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!"

My Photo
Name:
Location: Australia

I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. Like Arthur Dent from "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", if you do not have a Babel Fish in your ear this blog will be completely unintelligible to you and will read something like this: "boggle, google, snoggle, slurp, slurp, dingleberry to the power of 10". Fortunately, those who have had the Babel Fish inserted in their ear, will understood this blog perfectly. If you are familiar with this technology, you will know that the Babel Fish lives on brainwave radiation. It excretes energy in the form of exactly the correct brainwaves needed by its host to understand what was just said; or in this case, what was read. The Babel Fish, thanks to scientific research, reverses the problem defined by its namesake in the Tower of Babel, where a deity was supposedly inspired to confuse the human race by making them unable to understand each other.

"DIFFICILE EST SATURAM NON SCRIBERE"

Beepbeepitsme has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts.

Subscribe to BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Does This Make Me Famous, Infamous or Almost Famous?


Quote from the movie 'The Three Amigos': - "In-famous is when you're MORE than famous. This man El Guapo, he's not just famous, he's IN-famous."
~*~

Recently I entered the information concerning my blog at One Blog A Day. This is a blog which features blogs from across the internet. In the words from 'One Blog A Day': -
~*~

'One Blog A Day' will feature an Enterview with a blogger, who has made a significant contribution to the online community, every day. Our goal is to let bloggers share their stories with you and get invaluable feedbacks on their hard work. Please contribute to our efforts by sharing your thoughts and comments. Also, if you are a blogger, share your story with others by Submitting Your Blog Information.
~*~

So, being the shrinking violet that I am, I entered the information concerning my blog and the posting of my blog on the site can be viewed here. If you too want to be famous, infamous or almost famous, you also can enter your blog details. Good luck and may the 15 minutes of fame be with you.


"In the future, everybody will be world famous for 15 minutes." Andy Warhol.

(And yes, that is Adam Savage from 'Mythbusters' playing Van Gogh.)

Link

143 Comments:

Anonymous niran said...

Beep this may not be the post and the time, but I thought I'll take you up on the invite. Noticed your last comment on agradevaduta that persisted with the 'no sufficient proof argument' even though you were unwilling to present an alternative of the universe came into existence. I thought it was strange that you keep repeating the same machinated response to theistic arguments. So here's the challenge. Prove that there are viable alternatives to the uncaused cause hypothesis that stand the test of reason. Let's debate this on your turf, with your atheist friends who you said were so scary and unforgiving. My hypothesis stands unless you can provide a viable, rational alternative. And if my hypothesis stands, theism is a more plausible view of how th cosmos came into existence. Over to you.

23/4/07 4:21 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Firstly, I hope you understand that you do not make your own claims true, by asking someone to present a contrary claim. Do you understand this, as I am loath to indulge in a game of logic with those who are unaware of the rules.

23/4/07 10:37 am  
Anonymous niran said...

Still dodging and weaving and attempting to avoid a debate Beep. Even on your own blog with your scary, rude atheist friends? Bad form.

If you agree that the universe exists, then you've got a few alternatives to explain its existence. I'll cut and paste from the ADD's blog since you seem to have a proclivity to avoiding these things on his blog.

"On the “either or” issue, it seems to me that in this case you can have only 3 logical alternatives, since the universe was EITHER caused OR uncaused. If it was caused, it is EITHER by infinite regression OR uncaused cause. There cannot be an alternative besides these three and the three are mutually exclusive. These three options cover all the bases and the EITHER OR seems to emerge."

So there are 3 logical possibilities, any other alternative would have to flow out of one of these 3 fundamental alternatives. Uncaused cause, infinite regress or uncaused. Which side are you on?

Or are you still scared to debate?

23/4/07 11:22 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Niran:

You don't understand that you do not make your own claim true by suggesting that someone post a contrary claim for you to debate.

I can't help you, you don't understand enough about logic to recognize this.

What was being discussed on the other blog was the Kalam Cosmo Argument, I don't need to offer a contrary argument in order to discuss the flaws in the Kalam one.

23/4/07 12:00 pm  
Anonymous mel said...

Shorter Niran:
"Beep, you either prove me wrong or I am right by default and you are scared to debate me."

What a fuck. It must be extremely difficult to see just how asinine this is when one is wearing an asshat.

Hey Beep, just saw your sheep shagger comments over at PZ's -- I had no idea that NZ had taken that kind of leadership...and Australia just a few years later. What exactly made the difference?

23/4/07 2:48 pm  
Anonymous mel said...

Oh, and congrats on your 15 minutes...but I thought you were already infamous. :P

23/4/07 3:02 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

Well, if you weren't taught inductive logic in school, here's a deductive formulation based on the premise that the universe exists. You conveniently ignored this on the add blog, so i'll copy and paste it here


"1.The Universe exists.
2. Things don’t pop into existence uncaused.
3. The universe did not pop into existence uncaused.
4. The universe is caused.
5. An actual infinite regress of physical causes is impossible.
6. The universe cannot be caused by an infinite regress of physical causes.
7. Since 4 and 6 are true, the universe was caused by an uncaused cause(the alternatives being logically impossible. #3 and #5.)
8. The uncaused cause cannot be caused.
9. Since the uncaused cause never began to exist, the uncaused cause is infinite.
10. Since 5 is true, the uncaused cause is not a physical entity.

I can refine this further, but if you have any questions regarding each of the steps let me know. I’ve covered all the links in some of the earlier exchanges."

Interesting that you ignored this on the previous blog. Hopefully this will entice you into a debate, but I wouldn't count on it.

When you said your friends weren't polite you should have said that the utterance of profanities was all they were capable of. Ooh, I'm really scared.

23/4/07 5:32 pm  
Blogger Chris Bradley said...

Niran,

Actually, things do pop into existence for no discernible reason. Not only are there virtual particles, but quantum miracles, quantum flux and dark energy.

The second law of thermodynamic teeters. Observational evidence demonstrates almost constantly that things, in fact, do pop into existence.

FYI.

23/4/07 6:10 pm  
Blogger Dikkii said...

I'll have a go at this troll.

1.The Universe exists.

We'll accept that.

2. Things don’t pop into existence uncaused.

Maybe. Maybe not. Define "pop into existence".

3. The universe did not pop into existence uncaused.

Straw man. Whoever suggested that it "popped into existence"?

4. The universe is caused.

You've lost me at 3. 4 is based upon a questionable premise. But do go on.

5. An actual infinite regress of physical causes is impossible.

Not by your logic it's not.

6. The universe cannot be caused by an infinite regress of physical causes.

Irrelevant. See points 3 and 4. But keep digging.

7. Since 4 and 6 are true, the universe was caused by an uncaused cause(the alternatives being logically impossible. #3 and #5.)

6 is irrelevant. 4 is based on a questionable premise. 3 is a straw man and you've logically implied 5 to be false. Yeah!!

8. The uncaused cause cannot be caused.

This is a statement of the bleeding obvious. By definition. But I fail to see how it helps your case.

9. Since the uncaused cause never began to exist, the uncaused cause is infinite.

Actually, if you had to assign a numerical value to it, it would be zero. By definition.

10. Since 5 is true, the uncaused cause is not a physical entity.

Since by your logic, 5 is false, 10 is not coherent as it's built upon a false premise.

Do I win?

23/4/07 6:22 pm  
Blogger Chris Bradley said...

Or, perhaps a little more rigorously.

2 is simply wrong, therefore 3 might be wrong and, observationally, seems to be wrong.

4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are all just assertion. You say these things, but can you offer proof? No, you cannot. So you just assert them and hope no one will notice.

I mean, if I assert "there is no god", you'd dismiss that, right?

Also, even if you're right and the universe was caused by some uncreated creator, it does not then prove that uncreated creator is god. Perhaps it is a blind, idiot force that spews out universes like I go to the bathroom. It does not prove that this force has a personality, agenda, or is in any other way a specific figure. It doesn't prove that it is aware of it's creation, interested in it, or in any other way part of the creation. It makes no other physical statements about this creator's relevance or relationship to the universe. Perhaps after creating the universe, the creator is unable to interact with it, for instance. Who knows?

So, even if your logic proved anything (which it doesn't, being based on error and assertion), it doesn't prove or even SUGGEST that the uncreated creator is godlike, much less your specific god.

23/4/07 6:25 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

Chris, that's the ultimate cop out. When you said no discernible reason, I hope you're not saying that no reason exists. There are lots of things that happen that we can't explain, but the human assumption of digging deep into causes is something that atheists and theists agree upon. I'm assuming that things that begin to exist do have a cause as this is a fundamental premise that human intellectual activity is based upon. I do agree however that we haven't figured out how and why everything happens. You haven't proved however that things do pop into existence, only that we don't know why somethings happen. So #2 is as self evident an assumption as 1.


Dikii,

#2 - refer my response to Bradley above.
#3 - if #2 is accepted #3 follows. It's not an allegation, it;s a deduction. Don't get all flustered.
#4 - if not uncaused, it is caused {Can't help it if you can't keep track.]
#5 - I'll cut and paste my argument from the thread I debated beep on re this point.
#6 - logically follows 5, if the universe is physical.
#7 - Yeah, you really deconstructed this one.
#8 - By definition, obvious right. Great.
#9- what numerical value and assigned to what? I lost you here.
#10 - Super, that does it. You don't win.

chris again,

2 is not wrong, you haven't proved it.
3 follows 2.
4 follows 3. opposite of uncaused is caused right?
5- refer the cut and post job of the debate beep participated for 5
6- follows 5.
7 follows 3,4,5,6
8 - you say its just assertion, dikkii says it bleeding obvious. Now you two resolve that one.

All I'm positing here is that an uncaused cause exists. We can give it a couple of other attributes based on the hypothesis once we agree it exists, but I'm happy to cause the uncaused cause God. You want to tell me what i can and can't call God?

23/4/07 8:04 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

"On the point of infinite regressions, leaving the scientific data aside for a moment, it seems to me that an actual infinite can never exist. For an actual infinite to exist, you would have to have a boundless set. In reality, the set of time is bounded by the present. As I said earlier, if the universe has existed for infinity, then tomorrow is infinity + 1 day. That is self evidently absurd in that infinity cannot be added on to. If it could be added on to, it would not be infinite."

"If Disco scrolls up a few comments, he will come across a couple of lengthy posts where I engaged Anisha on the impossibility of an actual ‘time based’ infinite universe. To put it simply, can tomorrow be infinity + 1 day? I am not arguing that an infinite set is inconceivable since in theory mathematicians work with infinite sets all the time. I’m arguing however, that an infinite set can never be put together by continuous addition."

"On infinity + 1, I’d like to direct Disco to the point where I argued that an infinite set can exist mathematically, but it is impossible to create an ‘actual’ infinite set of events as opposed to abstract numbers. Craig deals with Cantor’s paradoxes by referring to the Hilbert’s hotel analogy, where additional guests can check in without anyone checking out, while the number of guests remain the same. Craig suggests that you would have to have a sign that read “No vacancies- guests welcome”. This is clearly an absurd state of affairs, and brings us back to the problem of “is tomorrow infinity + 1 day” or does the effluxion of time lose all meaning within the idea that the universe is infinite. The theist’s answer is much more plausible, an actual time bound set of real events cannot exist. Therefore the universe had a beginning which was caused by the uncaused cause."

"On ‘infinity + 1′ I argued that the Hilberts Hotel analogy demostrated that an actual, infinite, time based set of events cannot exist. I highlighted the internal contradictions that such an actual infinite set will provide, which is that additional guests can arrive without existing guests checking out while the number of guests remain the same. I suggested that if one were to apply this analogy to events, the effluxion of time loses all meaning, since ‘infinity + 1 day’ would still equal infinity. This means that the ‘1 day’ part of the equation becomes meaningless. It may be that the effluxion of time is not self evident to Disco, although it may be pointed out that in adopting an accordion model of the universe, he unequivocally accepts the effluxion of time as a meaningful phenomenon in the cosmos."

Regards, Niran

23/4/07 8:16 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

Might have misstated one of my points Bradley. I said somewhere that things don't pop into existence. They very well may eg- popcorn. My point is that things don't pop into existence uncaused. The assumptions is critical to human thought even if we don;t know what the causes are when we observe a give effect.

23/4/07 8:26 pm  
Blogger Dikkii said...

Feeding the trolls, Dikkii responds to Niran's challenge:

#2 - refer my response to Bradley above.

OK I will. (reads response) You didn't address the point. I'll ask the question again - define "popping into existence".

You've missed a step in your narrative - this is what is you have implied:

1A. It is necessary for existing things to have popped into existence

Of course, it is not. But you knew that, didn't you?

#3 - if #2 is accepted #3 follows. It's not an allegation, it;s a deduction. Don't get all flustered.

Rubbish. #3 only follows #2 if you accept #1A as well. #2 only talks about things that pop into existence, not all existing things. But you didn't want to mention this, did you?

Why is that?

My point stands - you used a half-baked proposition in order to create a straw man.

#4 - if not uncaused, it is caused {Can't help it if you can't keep track.]

Very good, except if your response to point 2 implies a dichotomy between caused and uncaused that may not necessarily be there.

If your implied point #1A is false and it's possible for something to have always existed then that thing becomes neither caused nor uncaused.

You've set up a false dichotomy where a third option exists. But again, you knew this.

#5 - I'll cut and paste my argument from the thread I debated beep on re this point.

MarkCC has blogged extensively about infinity in the past. Take it up with him.

Nevertheless, it's pretty much irrelevant, and my point still stands - you've implied the opposite of what you said. Deal with it.

#6 - logically follows 5, if the universe is physical.

Still frustratingly irrelevant. And a straw man based on your questionable premises 1A, 2 and 3, not to mention false premise number 5. This point has no value in this discussion.

#7 - Yeah, you really deconstructed this one.

*blushes* Well, credit where credit's due.

#8 - By definition, obvious right. Great.

I was actually asking for the relevance of this point. You failed to provide it, so I'll have to assume there is none, because you go straight to 9 without your implied point 8A:

8A. Restate points 1A and 2.

And why would you skip this point, eh?

#9- what numerical value and assigned to what? I lost you here.

No, you clearly assigned an infinite value to the uncaused cause. Allow me to demonstrate by quoting you back:

9. Since the uncaused cause never began to exist, the uncaused cause is infinite.

(My emphasis)

I put it to you that ∞ ≠ 0, which is the value that we can assign to the uncaused cause as by your own implied proposition 1A, all things that exist or have existed (including those causes not uncaused) must have popped into existence at some point. Therefore the uncaused cause never existed and is therefore, zero. N'est-ce pas?

#10 - Super, that does it. You don't win.

Oh but I do. And I didn't need to spot the utter wrongness of your point 10 before to do it. Point 9 was enough fun as it was.

23/4/07 10:34 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Niran :

Your argument relies on religious faith that your premises are true as it certainly does not rely on scientific evidence. This was suggested to you on numerous occasions on the blog in question when I suggested to you to demonstrate the necessity and the veracity of your premises.

This you were unable to do, so regardless of whether you have faith that the premises are true, I don't accept the conclusion as being true as I don't accpet that the premises are true.

You, however, accept that your premises are true based in religious faith. Wake up call! I am an atheist. I do not accept your premises based in religious faith.

23/4/07 11:00 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

I also provided examples where the same problem arises in any argument from deduction and that is that even if an argument is logically sound, it does not mean that either the premises or the conclusion is true.

Let's look at this one.

1. Everything exists within the bounds of and conforms to the laws of material reality.
2. Gods do not exist within the bounds of, or conform to, the laws of material reality.
3. Therefore gods do not exist.

It's easy to make arguments of this nature including the Kalam cosmo one. What isn't easy is to demonstrate the necessity and veracity of the premises upon which the argument rests.

23/4/07 11:16 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

With due deference to established bloggers and reeling due to the troll reference. Ouch that really hurt..You people really know how to insult people no...sensitive herd.

# 2- I think you missed a trick. I said "pop into existence uncaused." Yous still want a definition of what it means to begin to exist uncaused? Hey, that's a definition in itself. Problems with elementary comprehension?

"1A. It is necessary for existing things to have popped into existence"

I implied this? What unadulterated atheist rubbish. I don't even know what you meant by that. I do assert though that things that begin to exist must have a cause. Things that don't begin to exist don't. I don't know whether that's what you're trying to get at, in your own way. I accept the formulation I have just provided completely and it should be included somewhere.

So 3 follows 2 if you accept that the universe is a physical thing. Not rubbish after all and no need to invoke dodgy 1A's that just popped into existence uncaused!

Don't have a clue as to what you mean by false dichotomies, but there are only three explanations for the existence of a physical thing. It began to exist caused, began to exist uncaused, or always existed infinitely. I asserted that to assert that things begin to exist uncaused(popped into existence uncaused) violates all assumptions we have of the universe . It is not disproved because Bradley doesn't know why certain things happen. The other alternative is that the universe never began to exist, that it existed infinitely. But an actual infinite thing can't exist infinitely since the concept of time is invoked to express ideas about the succession of physical states of things. So you have the ridiculous notion that infinity can be bounded by time which results in all sorts of screw ups like the Hilbert Hotel. Apply the analogy to time and you realise that if you posit that that the universe existed infinitely, the effluxion of time loses all meaning. So infinite physical things can't and don't exist.

Any other outstanding problems? I'll be happy to deal with them. The use of these numbers have got a little difficult because I can't remember what 2 and 3 and 4 were, and constant scrolling up to the list is a pain. I'd be obliged if we could refer to the argument by name.

I'll take it up with Mark or whoever, but this is not fun. Why can't you debate it. I mean I could refer you to Craig and Platinga but that would not be fun would it? Defeats the purpose. Would be fun if this Mark character came here.

I hope I'm not the only who thinks that a lot of what you're saying is incoherent. But this wretched numerical reference system may have something to do with it.

Oh, the uncaused cause wasn't caused, but it also exists infinitely. And this infinity is possible because its not a physical thing.

Anyone really willing to proffer a decent argument? Bradley's assertion that things do pop into existence uncaused was the only one that came close.

Oh, and am I the only one with word verification problems.

23/4/07 11:18 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

You can assert all you like. Let me know when you have evidence that isn't reliant upon religious faith.

23/4/07 11:26 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

beep the problem with the the deductive sequence you posted was that the premise is not at all proven. To say that everything that exists is bound by the laws of nature is to in limine exclude the supernatural. Therefore it's a tautology.

My two premises were that the universe exists and things don't begin to exist uncaused. Accepted by most and not tautologous.

First you didn't like my hypothesis because inductive reasoning was problematic. Now you have a problem with deductive logic because you find that a tautology is unfair!! Wow, glad you figured that one out. This is really boring.

23/4/07 11:28 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

mel

Thanks for visiting. Yeah, the kiwis were quite progressive when it came to granting women the vote.

RE: faith based arguments for god

Well, you know how it is, they have to keep on reassuring themselves that their daddy in the sky is watching their every move. Their arguments are only attractive to those who already call themselves theists, so I don't know why they bother positing them to anyone else.

23/4/07 11:29 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

niran:

You are finally getting it. But you cannot demand of me to demonstrate the necessity or veracity of my premises as you are unable to demonstrate yours.

23/4/07 11:31 pm  
Blogger Dikkii said...

Niran.

"reeling due to the troll reference."

Apologies for that. You did appear to ride in on what's politely termed a "high horse".

"Yous still want a definition of what it means to begin to exist uncaused? Hey, that's a definition in itself. Problems with elementary comprehension?"

Maybe you should be asking yourself that question about comprehension, 'cause that wasn't what I asked. I asked you to define "popping into existence". Which you did not do.

"I implied this? What unadulterated atheist rubbish. "

The joke's on you, Einstein. You've just picked out one of the few non-atheists here.

In any event, you did imply it. You refuse to acknowledge that existing things may have always existed and never "popped into existence" as you put it.

However, I suspect that you're being dishonest about this. You said this:

"I don't even know what you meant by that."

Because you said this not long after:

"It began to exist caused, began to exist uncaused, or always existed infinitely."

(my emphasis)

If it sounds like I'm giving you the third degree, I apologise. But this is how I perceive your performance thus far:

You leap from one conclusion to the next and ignore all the steps in between.

Don't have a clue as to what I mean by false dichotomies? Look it up.

You invoke straw men and come to irrelevant conclusions. You suffer from a sort of presuppositionalism which Beep posted about not long ago.

You appear to be selective about the validity of points made that conflict with yours.

And when you can't respond because you've been logically outgunned, you invoke red herrings such as "physical things" and "infinity".

"I'll take it up with Mark or whoever, but this is not fun. Why can't you debate it."

Because it's a red herring, that's why. And in this blogosphere, not knowing who MarkCC is is blasphemy. Click on the link I gave you and read up.

You claim to use inductive reasoning yet you base your arguments upon false or questionable premises which you refuse to admit are false or questionable.

And to top it off, you generalise everyone posting as atheists, which not all of us are.

Sadie Lou's a theist. I'm agnostic. There are others.

That's it. I've had enough. I'm out of here.

Sorry I lost my cool, Beep.

24/4/07 12:26 am  
Anonymous niran said...

Ya, you certainly did lose your cool. That's nice. Anyway, looks like there was no real argument there other than the usual machinated responses- straw man, this fallacy, that fallacy, the other fallacy. But no real demonstration that the argument posited was invalid or that the said fallacies necessarily attach to my argument. For instance, I have no problem with the assertion that some entity existed infinitely without being caused. Wonder why you got your knickers in a twist because I that's one of the alternatives that a theist has to respond to in the pursuit of demonstrating that the UC is the most viable explanation for the existence of the universe. In fact, the whole Hilbert Hotel analogy was used in the process of demonstrating the invalidity of an argument that I was accused of dishonestly ignoring. These non believers (happy with that characterization i hope) are hilarious.

Beep, seems like your friends are n ot as polite as you are but not any more intelligent. One just threw the word fuck around, the other lost her/his cool and didn't even engage a single argument. And you my dear, have just kept throwing the religious presup argument even after i obliged you and gave you a deductive argument where the only two assumptions were that the universe exists and that things don't begin to exist uncaused.

Anyway, it's not been fun. Boring is the word. No debate, just empty soundbites. I've learnt that there are some who suckle at Mark's, er worship at Mark's feet. How cute.

24/4/07 1:03 am  
Blogger Dikkii said...

Niran,

You really didn't read any of my rebuttals, did you?

"These non believers (happy with that characterization i hope) are hilarious."

I would have preferred non (dis-)believers, but well, you can put jam on it.

24/4/07 1:14 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

niran:

May your delusion make you happy and I hope it doesn't persuade you to harm others, as is usually the case with delusions.

RE: bloggers comments

I don't mind how people express themselves as long as they do not threaten physical harm to each other. It is their perogative if they are rude and insulting as you have also been. If they react to your insults, who can blame them, I don't.

But it does make me wonder how your god would appreciate your insulting behaviour. Obviously it is of no consequence to me, as I don't believe that gods exist. It should be of consequence to you however.

As for your argument, you have the gall to ignore me when I ask you to demonstrate the veracity and necessity of your presuppositions, and yet you have the gall to ask me to demonstrate mine.

Double standards and strawman arguments appear to be your forte.

24/4/07 1:17 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

BTW, NO energy in the form of an uncaused cause from the outside is required to "create" the universe as the total energy of the universe is zero.

24/4/07 1:42 am  
Anonymous niran said...

dikii, rebuttals? What rebuttals? Oh, you mean the rebuttal when you said i had dishonestly not engaged/ignored an idea when I had spent an entire post trying to demonstrate that the idea was a serious one, but was ultimately one that did not hold water.

Beep, carry on asking me to prove my premises when I've repeatedly demonstrated their veracity and validity in inductive and deductive forms.

You should really read up on my debate with Disco on ADD. That was some good shite. he was articulate, responsive to arguments and displayed a proclivity to engage arguments, something you and your friends have not really been interested in. I fear that whatever i say you will just throw around the argument that I'm presupposing a God, when I'm evidently presupposing only the universe and the principle of causality. I kind of knew you never wanted to debate, but I try to give a person the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes, I just waste my time pursuing a good stimulating debate.

Please don't mistake me, i don't mind the insults at all, especially not these ones. I just felt they a were a little childish, lacked that biting sting that make insults fun and in general were just witless. Calling a person a fuck, wow, I could train my pet parrot that kind of wit.

I don't know whether the UC really cares that I called your lot generally unintelligent and loathe to engage in a debate. Don't think this UC is the politically correct, wussified God the church in the west tries to project.

"BTW, NO energy in the form of an uncaused cause from the outside is required to "create" the universe as the total energy of the universe is zero."

Never said anything about energy, so that's just a cute observation. Good for you.

This is the last I'll comment on this blog. Hope this atheist blogroll thing has people who are better equipped to deal with these sorts of arguments.

24/4/07 3:16 am  
Blogger Chris Bradley said...

Niran,

No, as far as we can tell, virtual particles, dark energy, quantum miracles and quantum flux, things of that nature, do in fact come into existence uncaused. There is no causal event. Seriously.

Causation in quantum physics is . . . it's pretty dicey. Your insistence that everything has a "cause" is a bunch of Aristotelian junk that doesn't have a lot of significance in modern physics. Things so just happen. This can be demonstrated.

Which also shows, I think, the problem with pure logic. With logic alone, a person gets a lot of results that are incompatible with other elements of sense, such as perception and other sorts of reason. Logical proofs have poor relation to the way things really are. All the time, things that should "logically" happen do not. Logic is a tool. Sometimes it's the right tool, sometimes not. Where you're trying to apply it, now . . . it is not the right tool.

24/4/07 4:14 am  
Blogger Chris Bradley said...

I also just scanned Niran's comments that weren't addressed to me (mostly because it was repetitious), and I never did he seem to address the charge of assertion. Again and again he just asserted things -- such as "there are only three ways something can come into existence" . . . doesn't even bother to try to use a logical proof or a proof from any other field of knowledge. It is an assertion, but he uses that assertion as "logical proof" while attempting to hold his foes to some standard of proof.

Also, Niran never was able to demonstrate via proof or any other means that an uncreated creator must be god, or anything, really, than having the traits of uncreated creator. For instance, what if the uncreated creator is . . . quantum flux. (This is the number one physical idea for the big bang.) Quantum flux might be "uncreated", universal, and ever-present. But it ain't god.

24/4/07 4:22 am  
Anonymous niran said...

Chris, I'll make an exception and engage your points even though I said I won't comment anymore on this blog because you're the only one who seems willing to engage.

I fear your point that things just pop into existence is pure assertion, something you have accused me of. The further assertion that you are serious does not take away from the fact that at most, your examples demonstrate that humans don't know why certain things pop into existence. To say that you can conclusively say that they are uncaused is to pretend that science is not in need of further growth and is in a state of perfection.

Re the three alternatives and the charge of mere assertions, let me just do another cut and paste job. perhaps you should read up that debate on the add blog.

agradevaduta.wordpress

"On the “either or” issue, it seems to me that in this case you can have only 3 logical alternatives, since the universe was EITHER caused OR uncaused. If it was caused, it is EITHER by infinite regression OR uncaused cause. There cannot be an alternative besides these three and the three are mutually exclusive. These three options cover all the bases and the EITHER OR seems to emerge."

If the atheist/skeptic/agnostic wishes to distance himself from logic, that's fine. It just confirms to the theist mind a thing or two he always knew about atheists :-)

24/4/07 10:42 am  
Anonymous niran said...

the either or quote there is falsifiable, if you can bring up another alternative. But you can't, I followed a logical sequence there. It's either this or that. Simple really.

Also, I'm only trying to prove that an uncaused cause is the cause of the universe. Once we get to this point I'm happy to speculate on what its specific attributes are. The quantum flux model is the contraction expansion model right? Well this model just begs the question, how did the system come into being in the first place. You look at physical matter and you have got to ask, is this the cause of an infinite regress of causes or did the chain of causation start somewhere.

24/4/07 10:49 am  
Anonymous remy said...

Wow, I bin away and this is what I gets back tuh.

There seems to be an increase in those who begin an arguement from a starting line that they have designed. If you are not willing to participate because you know it to be a rather stupid and futile starting position, you're are by default wrong. It really boils down to:

"See, can't answer me can you, ner-ne-ner-ne-ner-ner I win!"

I am really very sorry Niran, but you are quite a silly person. Don't ask for proof, just read your posts as if you understood logic.

24/4/07 11:02 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "Beep, carry on asking me to prove my premises when I've repeatedly demonstrated their veracity and validity in inductive and deductive forms."

No you haven't. You haven't demonstrated these at all.

Now back to your multitudinous unsubstantiated claims.

1. You claim that there is uncaused cause.
2. You claim that this uncaused cause doesn't require a cause because it is immaterial.
3. You claim that immaterial entities do not require a cause but that all material ones do.
4. You claim that this uncaused immaterial cause is a god.
5. You claim that this uncaused immaterial cause is a god and that it is specifically the god associated with your religion.

None of these claims have been substantiated.

Now you call this a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a suggested explanation for a possible correlation between what you see as multiple phenomena. Your problem is that you are unable to demonstrate not only the correlation between an uncaused cause and your specific god belief, but also you are unable to demonstrate the necessity for an uncaused cause. Persuant to this is that you are also unable to demonstrate that an uncaused cause can only be an immaterial one.


That is, if it is possible for one uncaused cause, ( and you haven't demonstrated the necessity for this idea), then it is equally possible for many or an infinite number of uncaused causes. Persuant to this, is that if it is possible for one no-matter thing to exist, (and once again you haven't demonstrated the necessity for this idea), it is equally possible for many or an infinite number of no-matter thingies to exist.

As I said to you on numerous occasions, you have faith that your premises are true. I don't.

Try again and try harder.

24/4/07 11:11 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Niran:
Well, I posited that energy is indeed eternal, as per the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Also, I'm only trying to prove that an uncaused cause is the cause of the universe.
Infinite regress is back in the fold.
So what caused the 'uncaused cause'?
You look at physical matter and you have got to ask, is this the cause of an infinite regress of causes or did the chain of causation start somewhere.
It started in energy, which is a grosser manifestation of matter (or the reverse, if you prefer: energy being the finer expression of matter).
& unless you can prove that there was a time where 'nothing' was the default, I'll assume that there's always been energy.
To say that you can conclusively say that they are uncaused is to pretend that science is not in need of further growth and is in a state of perfection.
Oh now, that's just silly. Define 'perfection', if you please.
Stipulating a creator above the laws of creation is just plain silly, unless of course, you can provide me w/a parallel, where the creator is NOT subject to the same laws of physics as the creation.
Oh, and:
BOO!
Did I scare ya? (hehehehe)

24/4/07 11:12 am  
Blogger BEAJ said...

Beep, aren't you glad I told you to go that blog?

24/4/07 11:30 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Beaj:


Yes, its been a lot of fun. :) I should have asked if it was going to be a 5 minute argument or a course of 10.

Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.

Certainly sir. Have you been here before?

No, I haven't, this is my first time.

I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?

Well, what is the cost?

Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.

Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.

Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment. Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory. Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.

Thank you.

The Argument Sketch
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

24/4/07 11:41 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Everything that begins to have an effect requires a cause.

Unless one wishes to claim that something is self-caused, everything that begins to have an effect requires a cause.

As one can just as easily claim that the universe is self-caused, (eternal), as one can claim that god is self-caused (eternal), the claim that something exists outside of the universe which is self-caused or eternal, is superfluous to requirements.

In other words, to appeal to an outside self-caused cause, is to beg the question entirely.

Occam's razor neatly disposes of the superfluous concept of a "self-caused cause" existing outside of the universe.

24/4/07 12:04 pm  
Blogger Dikkii said...

And you were bemoaning the lack of theist trolls on your blog, Beep.

Be careful what you wish for. :-)

24/4/07 12:29 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

dikki:

I like trolls. Afterall, a troll needs permission to be a troll and I can remove that permission at anytime.

And let's fact it, it's fun. :)

24/4/07 2:18 pm  
Blogger Chris Bradley said...

Niran,

No, things popping into existence is not assertion. That dark energy really does seem to be coming from nowhere.

However, for my point, I don't need to prove that it actually does pop from nowhere. You stated that there are only a certain number of ways things can come into being -- you can't say that and then admit to uncertainty and then expect your premises to remain logically valid. If your premise is, instead, of things coming into existence only because of dependent origination and, instead, it's, "Everything comes into existence via dependent origination, except these things we're not sure about", the premise is obviously unsound because before you can say with certainty a thing is a given way you must eliminate the other possibilities. And it is certainly possible that things pop into existence for no reason.

"On the “either or” issue, it seems to me that in this case you can have only 3 logical alternatives, since the universe was EITHER caused OR uncaused. If it was caused, it is EITHER by infinite regression OR uncaused cause. There cannot be an alternative besides these three and the three are mutually exclusive. These three options cover all the bases and the EITHER OR seems to emerge."

I'm saying that we don't know what caused the universe. Uncertainty about the "first cause" -- if such a term has meaning, which it might not -- isn't the same as rejecting logic. Indeed, one could say that it is using logic, as opposed to misusing it, which you seem to be doing. You premise things about which we simply do not know. Your arguments are literally Aristotelian. The . . . deep flaws of the logical proofs of the prime mover are centuries old, and if you know the argument well enough to parrot it, you must be educated enough to know the numerous rank assertions that Aristotle and Aquinas made. The idea that the argument of dependent origination proves the existence of god as "logical" has been challenged for centuries. So, please, don't make this sound like I have some sort of deep hostility towards logic. I don't. I just know that logic is a tool that can be misapplied, and in this case is.

Also, I'm only trying to prove that an uncaused cause is the cause of the universe. Once we get to this point I'm happy to speculate on what its specific attributes are. The quantum flux model is the contraction expansion model right? Well this model just begs the question, how did the system come into being in the first place. You look at physical matter and you have got to ask, is this the cause of an infinite regress of causes or did the chain of causation start somewhere.

The same questions arise when discussion god, too. God, as unknowable and all that, means we don't know how any god got there, either. "What caused god" is as valid a question as "what caused quantum flux".

I am agnostic about what caused the universe to come into being. But I know that logical sounding proofs don't actually prove anything, but are tools useful to a greater or lesser extent in certain specific situations. Logic often leads to conclusions that are at variance with scientific reasoning (try to logically prove the invariance of light speed if you want to get an idea how logic collapses in the face of the universe), for instance.

24/4/07 2:22 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

I've replied on the krystalline blog

24/4/07 6:26 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

Don't know whether it got posted there, so here it is.

It's nice to know there's been so much speculation on whether I'll turn up. Krystalline got it right. I'm unaware of your blogging rules regarding trolling, but suffice it to say that I was explicitly invited to beep's blog and implicitly invited to this one. Hope that clears out a few issues for those who are upset that i turned up.


Of the comments that I've read in response to my argument, two ideas directly challenged my case. The others were mere repetitive rants on how I had not demonstrated a thing, and that I'm just assuming God through faith. To those of you who subscribe to those views, read Beepbeepitsme, I have nothing to say to you.

The idea that Brad posited was that things do pop into existence uncaused and the idea that energy is infinite and thus removes the necessity for an uncaused cause are the only two ideas that really had the potential to pull down my argument, so let me deal with those two assertions. The argument has also been hinted at that if God does not need to be caused, neither does the universe. This merits mention as well.

Re Brad's idea, I first submitted that just because humans have no idea as to why something was caused, did not mean that the thing just popped into existence. The idea that things that begin to exist must be caused is as natural as assumption that the universe exists. Furthermore, we may ask, why don't random things pop into existence all the time? The point is that one cannot posit that only a type of thing pops into existence since before a thing exists, there is no property that could limit its ability to be caused out of nothing, if one admits Brad's argument. But observationaly, there is no evidence for the fact that things just pop into existence uncaused, since an attempt to provide observational evidence would only prove that we do not know what caused the thing to exist. But that's not all, Brad's dark energy is a hypothesis or a theory invoked to explain the contracting universe. It hasn't been proved to exist, let alone exist infinitely.

Re Krystalline's idea that energy is infinite, based on her interpretation of the 1st principle of thermodynamic, I have this to say. The first principlem only posits that in a closed system energy cannot be created or destroyed. There is no suggestion there that the system which is closed existed infinitely, for only if you posit an eternal system will you get eternal energy. But the whole debate in the first place is whether the universe is infinite. So Krystalline assumes an infinite closed system in trying to prove that the system is infinite. Very clever work, but this type of argument is generally called a tautology. Speak to Beep re this, she's very keen to pick out tautolgies even when they don't exist.

Further, energy does not exist outside spacetime. The universe is matter plus energy. But my point earlier made was that no thing bounded by spacetime can exist infinitely. To posit that it does will lead you to absurdities like the Hilbert Hotel, where the sign could read "No rooms available- guests are welcome" Time would lose all meaning even though it is invoked in describing changing physical states. Rubbish.

On the third query of what caused the uncaused cause, the response is, the uncaused cause is uncaused. Like, DUH. But for those who like to question a little deeper into the assumption, the theist posits an infinite uncaused God because this cause is of necessity not a physical entity, and thus can exist infinitely since is outside the boundary of time. Why is it outside time, because time as a concept is invoked to express ideas about the changing of physical states. Where no matter exists, time does not exist.

Let's see some nice smiley unbeliever faces now...ok?

24/4/07 7:13 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

There hardly seems to be any point in reading your posts as you appear not to read anyone else's in any depth.

24/4/07 10:23 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

1. Divine creation as the uncaused cause implies an ex ante facto empty state of the universe.

2. Empty states are atemporal and without potentiality.

3. Divine creation as the uncaused cause implies that we had an empty state which was transformed into a nonempty state by action.

4. As an action, divine creation requires time and potentiality. (from 1)

5. Since an empty state implies the absence of time and potentiality, and divine creation requires them, the only logical conclusion from these propositions is:

6. Divine creation is impossible. (from 2 and 3)

24/4/07 10:25 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Niran:
Re Krystalline's idea that energy is infinite, based on her interpretation of the 1st principle of thermodynamic, I have this to say.
I'm a guy.
The first principle only posits that in a closed system energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Can you absolutely prove the universe is a closed system? No?
There is no suggestion there that the system which is closed existed infinitely, for only if you posit an eternal system will you get eternal energy.
No, no, you miss the point: energy is the system.
But the whole debate in the first place is whether the universe is infinite.
No it's not. You need to bone up on your cosmology, dude.
So Krystalline assumes an infinite closed system in trying to prove that the system is infinite. Very clever work, but this type of argument is generally called a tautology.
I NEVER STIPULATED that the 'system' is an infinite closed system. Can you prove that? No?
Here, since you seem to mix your concepts freely, I'll spell it out for you:
A. Energy is the 'system'
B. Energy is never closed
C. Matter is composed of energy
D. The universe is composed of energy.
As to it being a tautology, I respond, 'Tu quoque'? Because that's what YOU'RE trying to pull off here.
W/little success, I might add.

On the third query of what caused the uncaused cause, the response is, the uncaused cause is uncaused.

Yeah, you're a fine 1 to point fingers. Feh.
But for those who like to question a little deeper into the assumption, the theist posits an infinite uncaused God because this cause is of necessity not a physical entity, and thus can exist infinitely since is outside the boundary of time.
Christlation: "Duh, goddidit."
Psalms 90:4, ain't it?
Logorrhea isn't a substitute for actual deep thought.
Really, you might want to take that 'Deep Thinker' plaque off your wall, because it ain't true.

25/4/07 12:25 am  
Blogger Chris Bradley said...

Niran,

Random things do pop into existence all the time. They're called virtual particles. Uncounted trillions of them are popping into -- and, mostly, out of -- existence all around you even as you read this. Also, dark energy is appearing around you right now, and the rate of acceleration is increasing.

And what pops into existence is quanta. It's what we're all made out of. It isn't some rare, exotic thing -- it's energy, and according to repeatedly demonstrated physical theories (the same ones that keep atomic reactors working, and those hydrogen bombs blowing up, and the sun going), energy and matter are interchangeable.

The stuff WE ARE MADE OF is popping into existence right now.

But observationaly, there is no evidence for the fact that things just pop into existence uncaused.

You are simply not listening to me, so I'll say it, again. Virtual particles, quantum miracles, quantum flux and dark energy all have observational existences! There is a huge body of evidence that this goes on, and that it goes on again and again, constantly.

And you're confusing dark energy with dark matter. And you're ignoring quantum flux, quantum miracles and virtual particles.

. But my point earlier made was that no thing bounded by spacetime can exist infinitely.

Physics, again, disagrees. Quanta is indestructible. I said to my wife, who is a mathematical physicist, "Honey, can photons be destroyed?" And she said, "Don't be a silly goose. You know they can't." Then I told her it was for an online argument and she laughed.

Existing indefinitely is not the same as infinity, by the way, nor is any of this a supertask. The Hilbert Hotel defense of the cosmological argument is specious and always has been -- no physicists believe the universe to be infinite, after all, or believe that a supertask is going on. There's a difference between "really big" and "infinite" -- an infinitely large difference, as a matter of fact. The Hilbert Hotel canard is one of those things that gets used only by neo-Thomists that makes mathematicians and scientists roll their eyes because it's application in this argument is specious; we exist in a non-infinite universe.

On the third query of what caused the uncaused cause, the response is, the uncaused cause is uncaused.

Everything is caused except the uncaused cause? That's a flat out contradiction and has been since Aristotle came up with the cosmological argument. The logical gap between "something had to be the first cause" and "that first cause must be uncreated/unmovable/whatever" does not logically follow from the statement that there had to be a first cause.

So, your premises still continue to be assertions, mostly untestable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable. I'm noticing, too, that you absolutely REFUSE to discuss the authority of your assertions. You still just SAY things and expect us to take you seriously, without the slightest bit of proof, and when there exists for some of them a fair bit of contradictory proof.

But for those who like to question a little deeper into the assumption, the theist posits an infinite uncaused God because this cause is of necessity not a physical entity, and thus can exist infinitely since is outside the boundary of time. Why is it outside time, because time as a concept is invoked to express ideas about the changing of physical states. Where no matter exists, time does not exist.

Ah, and it starts to come out. See, now you're talking dualism, and you're saying a non-physical entity (god) created the physical world, and for god to exist outside of spacetime requires it to be non-physical, because time is the relation in space between physical objects (which might not be true -- time, on a quantum scale -- gets weird). However, this god thing is again an untestable, unverifiable, unobservible, unfalsifiable statment. And to say that an untestable, unverifiable, unobservational, unfalsifiable thing created the universe is very bad reasoning.

25/4/07 3:11 am  
Blogger Chris Bradley said...

And KA is absolutely right that Niran is pulling a tu quoque. I meant to say that a couple of posts ago. ;)

25/4/07 3:13 am  
Anonymous niran said...

This is getting ridiculously easy even after watching Sri lanka crush the Kiwis in the World Cup semi final. Huge drunken street parties here and even the warring parties declared a ceasefire to watch the game.

Beep, the problem with your little deductive arrangement there is that you assume that the divine creator has not the potentiality to actualize the universe. The issue of whether the UC exists is an independent one, but divine creation would assume potentiality that exists within the UC to actualise anything it wishes, so your argument really doesn't hold. Nice try, keep working at it.

Krystalline, your argument is an inference from the 1st law of thermodynamics right, which states that energy cannot be destroyed or created in a closed system. If the system is energy, and energy is not a closed system, pray how does the law even begin to apply, let alone permit itself to be used in your fanciful constructions?

Sorry about the gender mishap. Really.

Bradley, you're still not engaging my pint(shit, Freudian slip) on how it is impossible to prove that no cause for an thing exists, unless one posits perfect scientific knowledge whereby every single potential cause has been identified and eliminated. Also, you might want to take issue with Krystalline, who's saying that energy cannot be created or destructed in a closed system as per the 1st law of thermodynamics. here you are, positing that energy does pop into existence and can be destructed(you said this quanta doe s pop out of existence as well) But then your wife corrects you, "honey, don't be a silly gosse, photons cannot be destroyed!"

Also, I fail to see how your dear wife's cute observation on the non destructability of photons has the remotest significance to my argument. Perhaps you like being berated by your spouse. That's cool with me, but spare us the details mate.

"However, this god thing is again an untestable, unverifiable, unobservible, unfalsifiable statment."

Oh, I'm the one making blanket assertions? That's fine too.

25/4/07 9:24 am  
Blogger Chris Bradley said...

Niran,

you're still not engaging my pint(shit, Freudian slip) on how it is impossible to prove that no cause for an thing exists, unless one posits perfect scientific knowledge whereby every single potential cause has been identified and eliminated.

Back at you. How can you prove that there are only three discrete causes of a given thing's existence unless YOU posit perfect knowledge, too? I'm not the person trying to prove god exists, I'm just saying that your premises are bad. I don't have to prove what the universe "really is", merely create doubt about the truth of the premises upon which your argument rests. Which I have. We don't know, really, how the universe was created, and there's reason to suggest that things pop into existence all the time for no reason, so you lose your premises, which means your conclusions are automatically invalid.

This is "victory" for me, by the way. You're not even DOUBTING, anymore, that it's possible that things do, in fact, pop into existence for no reason, and even if you did, you'd be observationally wrong. Until it is explained how quantum flux, quantum miracles, dark energy (NOT dark matter) and virtual particles come from, how they get there, and things of that nature, a reasonable person must entertain that, perhaps, things do just pop into existence for no reason.

Thus, your entire argument falls apart.

QED.

25/4/07 9:55 am  
Blogger Chris Bradley said...

And, for what it is worth, I have talked about KA about the entropy thing. But he's a big boy and can argue his own points.

Plus, until you answer his points, you're also wrong. I know what he's saying. I . . . doubt you do. You seem to have virtually no knowledge of physics.

25/4/07 9:57 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

niran:

Sorry, you don't get to discuss the necessity or the veracity of those premises as you cannot demonstrate the necessity or the veracity of your own. :)

The premises are logically sound. Now whether you have objections to the premises from a scientific point of view, that is a different matter. But then, you don't acceot the scientific objections to the premises in your argument, so I have no desire to accept yours. :)

25/4/07 11:07 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Niran:
Krystalline, your argument is an inference from the 1st law of thermodynamics right, which states that energy cannot be destroyed or created in a closed system. If the system is energy, and energy is not a closed system, pray how does the law even begin to apply, let alone permit itself to be used in your fanciful constructions?
I think you're mixing your terms together here: I'll clarify.
The law of conservation (which is an expression of the 1st law) states - "The principle of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, although it can be changed from one form to another. Thus in any isolated or closed system, the sum of all forms of energy remains constant."
Note that last sentence. The 1st law DOESN'T stipulate it applies only to a closed system. It only states that the energy remains constant in a closed system.
& unless you can adequately demonstrate closed energy that doesn't interact w/any OTHER form of energy, that's my story, & I'm sticking w/it.
Sorry about the gender mishap. Really.
De nada. Bygones. I don't know why people make that mistake. Maybe too many sibilants?
Also, you might want to take issue with Krystalline, who's saying that energy cannot be created or destructed in a closed system as per the 1st law of thermodynamics
I didn't SAY a closed system, you did. I say there's actually no such thing as a closed system to begin w/. Not technically, at least.
The answers.com entry on this says:
"In the case where the system is not closed, energy may also be brought into the system by the addition of new material."
So, your definition is inept. You keep viewing it as uni-directional, which is your 1st problem. You're also trying to dictate the premises, which is your 2nd problem. Your 3rd problem is that you obviously think you're right no matter what, which is making this discussion a Red Queen effect.
So the real question is: are you here to score points on your imaginary scoreboard, or are you going to listen at all?

25/4/07 1:42 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

Beep, I have nothing to say to you. Your childish games are typical of the kind of comments you've been making during this long drawn out debate spanning multiple blogs. Are you really saying that you won't defend your premises because you think I'm not defending mine. That's nice, but I really don't think you're doing me a favour by adducing evidence for premises that I call into question. It's not a gift I'm begging for, so if you don't want to defend them, why would I bother?

Bradley, just because a phenomena is unexplained doesn't mean that you can conclude than it sprang out of nothingness. Atheists take justifiable offence when theists posit the god of the gaps. The point is that the deficiencies or incompleteness of scientific development cannot be used as an argument for either the veracity of the claims of either side. Your argument is the same as stating that because things seem to pop into existence uncaused, God is causing them to pop into existence. It's very silly.

The uncaused cause however is not a gaps theory. It is one that is based on demonstrating the implausibility of the logical alternatives.

Krystalline, first, I'm at a loss to conceive of how energy per se could constitute a system. Since energy and matter come together and since the 1st law read with E=mc2 suggests that energy and matter go hand in hand(wonder what the scientific terminology is?) an energy system would necessarily be a system of energy and matter right? But the universe is also energy and matter, so how energy constitutes an independent system is difficult to imagine. But here lies the rub, I have been able to prove, notwithstanding the howls of protest from the non theist side that physical matter cannot exist infinitely, since this collides with the idea of time invoked to explain any meaninful idea about successive physical states. Besides being called a neo Thomist or was it neo Aristotelian argument(it definitely was tagged, as if the tag carried the force of argument), no real critique of the Hilbert Hotel analogy and its implications has been presented here. So, this matter-energy system bound by spacetime can never exist infinitely. The problem with actual ifinities comes to bite you in the back.

Also, let's look at your argument.

"The First Law of Thermodynamics (aka the Conservation of Energy) stipulates that energy can't be destroyed - that it only changes. So, unless there's some scientific evidence to state otherwise, we will need to presuppose that energy is infinite in nature."

But this presupposition is problematic. First, the 1st law is consistent with the idea of creation ex nihilo. The presupposition of the theist is that this energy had to be created to exist in in the manner observed by the 1st law. Note the presupposition is that God's creation is not bound by the patterns observed of the creation after it was created. In the absence of an independent reason for doubting this presupposition, the first law doesn't demonstrate that energy is infinite. So, this presupposition of yours is not really necessary, and since an alternative is posited, there is no need to assume that the logical impossibility of an actual infinite is called into question.

Also Bradley, I'm not assuming that theer are only three possibilities. It's almost self evident. Step 1, the universe was either caused or uncaused. It cannot be neither caused nor uncaused. If caused, you kep regressing infinitely in causes or you don't. You can't avoid regressing infinitely while avoiding stopping at a certain point. It's logically impossible. So there you have your three alternatives. It was either caused or uncaused, if caused it was either due to infinite regress or an uncaused cause.

25/4/07 11:25 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

equivalence, that's the word.

25/4/07 11:27 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

niran:

I can't help you. There are too many things you don't understand, which is why you have your panties in a bunch.

Let me see if I can simplify it for you. An argument can be logically sound and still not true. Let me repeat that for you as I am not sure that you have listened to anything said to you.

An argument can be logically sound and still not true. So, even if my argument is logically sound, which it is - it doesn't by necessity make it true. The same goes with your argument.

Reread that a few times before you post anything again.

25/4/07 11:39 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

Look beep, I'm sure you'd like to discuss the state of my underwear over cosmology. I'm not interested. You can try but I'm picky.

I know that logically consistent doesn't mean true. Thanks anyway but no way that'll entice me.

26/4/07 12:28 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

niran:

I am glad you have learnt something from posting here. The fact is that I don't believe that your premises are correct, unless you can demonstrate their necessity and veracity, I don't accept the conclusion as true.

Let's see how much you actually know. How are you going to demonstrate the veracity of your premises? What method are you going to use?

26/4/07 12:33 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

niran:

And by the way, I have absolutely no interest in muslim underwear. If you are offering a peak at some mormon underwear, I might be tempted. I hear those mormons wear some hot undies.

26/4/07 12:37 am  
Anonymous niran said...

My premise was the universe exists, Sorry, can't prove that one. Doubt me if you want to.

Spare me the details about your fetishes. I'm really not interested.

26/4/07 1:54 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
Krystalline, first, I'm at a loss to conceive of how energy per se could constitute a system.
Think outside the box. Let's say that an atom is energy. Isn't that a system unto itself?
Since energy and matter come together and since the 1st law read with E=mc2 suggests that energy and matter go hand in hand(wonder what the scientific terminology is?) an energy system would necessarily be a system of energy and matter right?
I don't know how to make this any clearer: matter cannot do w/o energy, but the reverse isn't necessarily true.
But the universe is also energy and matter, so how energy constitutes an independent system is difficult to imagine.
Subtract the universe from the equation, & think about it.
But here lies the rub, I have been able to prove, notwithstanding the howls of protest from the non theist side that physical matter cannot exist infinitely, since this collides with the idea of time invoked to explain any meaninful idea about successive physical states.
Again, wasn't talking about physical matter. I said energy was infinite, nothing else. Matter (& then, in succession, the universe) are simply fluctuations.
Besides being called a neo Thomist or was it neo Aristotelian argument(it definitely was tagged, as if the tag carried the force of argument), no real critique of the Hilbert Hotel analogy and its implications has been presented here.
I think the entire analogy is lame, to be honest.
So, this matter-energy system bound by spacetime can never exist infinitely. The problem with actual infinities comes to bite you in the back.
Luckily, the rhetorical jaws of the trap snap on empty air.
You keep insisting that it's quid pro quo: no energy w/o matter, no matter w/o energy. 1 of those is false - let's test your reading comprehension: which 1 have I said is yes/no?
My premise was the universe exists,
No, it's not. Sad bit of sophistry, really.
An 'uncaused cause' that causes itself? Can you tell how that's petitio principii?
You came w/a premise that begs the question, you refuse to answer the question.
Socrates, you ain't.

26/4/07 2:49 am  
Anonymous niran said...

Well, you aint Einstein either Krystalline. I guess we make a good pair.

"I don't know how to make this any clearer: matter cannot do w/o energy, but the reverse isn't necessarily true."

But the law of conservation of matter also applies. So matter cannot just be created by energy. It can be converted into different forms of matter by energy. That's the problem. And matter also is infinite if your presupposition on energy holds. But I've given you reasons as to why that's not possible, and all you have to proffer in rebuttal is that it's lame. Wow, that's really convincing. You bowled me over with that piece of logic. Very clever.


"You keep insisting that it's quid pro quo: no energy w/o matter, no matter w/o energy. 1 of those is false - let's test your reading comprehension: which 1 have I said is yes/no?"

You tested my comprehension skills with that one all right. Must admit the latter part of that sounds just a tad bit incoherent. Matter and energy exist in a relationship of equivalence- wow that sounds good. But really, the universe is matter and energy. This begs the question, how did the blessed system get here in the first place.

"An 'uncaused cause' that causes itself? Can you tell how that's petitio principii?"

No Sir. If it's uncaused, it wasn't caused you know, even by itself. It just was. Never knew the meaning of the word uncaused could be so utterly incomprehensible so as to warrant a torrent of really meaningful questions like "Oh it's uncaused? But what caused it?" and now this one from you. The conclusion that the uncaused cause created the universe can be a hypothesis, but I've shown you how it can be presented in deductive form also if you accept the premise that the universe exists.

Concede?

26/4/07 3:41 am  
Blogger Chris Bradley said...

Bradley, just because a phenomena is unexplained doesn't mean that you can conclude than it sprang out of nothingness.

Niran, however, since we weren't at the creation of the universe, and probably wouldn't understand what was happening if we were (not to mention that conditions for human-style life didn't exist, then), it is equally incorrect to state with certainty how it did happen, and the agent of that happening.

I repeat, I am unsure how the universe was formed. All scientific cosmologists are uncertain how the universe was formed. We don't know.

Except you. Based on an argument with premises that can't pass scientific muster.

I'll say it ONE MORE TIME. Right now, right at this very moment, scientists believe that virtual particles, dark energy, quantum flux and quantum miracles cause things -- energy, which is the fundamental building block of the universe -- to come into existence out of nowhere. We can't see where this stuff comes from. One second nothing is there and then, pop, the next second it is there.

It is perhaps true that there is some engine, force, whatever, that these things come from. But, observationally, that's not the case. Observationally, these quanta come from nowhere and for no reason.

Until someone actually finds some "cause" in the material sense for these four phenomenon, it is illogical to say that something can't come out of nothing.

Niran, YOU HAVE LOST. Your belief that these four phenomenon have some sort of dependent origination is superficial, spurious and obviously an attempt to rescue your long dead argument.

No, we are no Einsteins. And you're no Hume who kicked this argument's ass with such conclusiveness that the only people who believe it are some neo-Thomist religious types that are the laughing stocks for the logic community. The truth is, we weren't there at the beginning (if there was a beginning -- maybe the Big Bang wasn't the beginning, after all) so we can't say how the universe was formed, or what did it, or why (if these questions even have meaning).

I also note you addressed your comments about my critique of the Hilbert Hotel to KA, not me. The argument that the universe is neither infinite nor a supertask is directly applicable to the Hilbert Hotel, because it only refers to infinities. If the universe has a discrete number of particles and interactions, no matter how many, so long as they are finite, discussions about the Hilbert Hotel are meaningless. The universe seems to be finite, but unbounded, which is not infinite, and seems to contain a discrete number of particles and a discrete number of interactions of those particles, so there is no supertask. Hilbert just doesn't apply.

To end:

The point is that the deficiencies or incompleteness of scientific development cannot be used as an argument for either the veracity of the claims of either side. Your argument is the same as stating that because things seem to pop into existence uncaused, God is causing them to pop into existence. It's very silly.

But you can use the incompleteness of knowledge to state with certainty your case? I have repeatedly conceded that I don't know. You have asserted that you do, but can't explain to me why scientific observations that run counter to your premises should be disregarded with an argument other than "they might be wrong." Well, they might. Unfortunately for your argument, they might also be right, and at present they seem to be right. So, you're saying that at some point they'll be wrong -- possibly true -- but until that time, it would be foolish to act if that was a certainty. But you do.

The problem with all god of the gaps beliefs is that they are unverifiable, unobservable, unfalsifiable, so there is no criteria to either determine if god exists or doesn't exist. In this epistemological void, anything can be projected, anything at all, but it doesn't make it true. I could say that outside of time and space there is nothing but peanut butter with as much logical veracity as a god -- and because I argue that it is impossible to observe this, because it's safely outside the possibility of human perception, neener, neener, I must be right is a grotesque misuse of logic.

But, you're wrong. I've demonstrated you're wrong. You argue dishonestly. You call names, you out and out lie, you make errors that when they're pointed out you then ignore, and you change the goalposts. You argue dishonestly, and I'm quits with it. This will probably mean you'll post something to get the last word, because you see the type, but I shan't read it because you're just going in circles at this point.

26/4/07 4:26 am  
Blogger Joshua said...

An uncaused cause, without matter and outside of space and time. Awesome - where can I get me some of that - and can it be used to power my flux capacitor?

If there can only be one uncaused cause did that cause lose its ability to cause another cause?

26/4/07 4:31 am  
Anonymous niran said...

Hehe... Bradley throws in the towel. I'm going to respond to what you said though, because I have a sneaking feeling you're actually going to read this. You won't respond because it'll prove you did read this reply after all.

No, i don't know exactly how the universe was created. I don't know what processes occurred and how things happened. I'm just using logic to demonstrate the implausibility of the logical alternatives of my barebones version. I'm not positing any details, I'm merely suggesting that logic points towards a general framework that is difficult to avoid.

As for the quanta etc that just appear, you have no response to my argument. Science continues to find causes for things that were assumed to be magical occurrences. And the human scientific project has always rejected the idea that things happen for no reason at all. Also you failed to answer my question as to why random things like horses or houses just don't pop into existence, since the property of a particular type of thing cannot limit the popping of that thing before the thing even existed.

The Hilbert Hotel analogy is used to prove that the universe cannot be infinite. if you don't think it's infinite, it shouldn't bother you. You're on my side on that one. But everything I say bothers you na...

Peanut butter cannot exist outside spacetime, since space and time would be invoked in the process of describing the state of peanut butter. Elementary my dear Bradley.

"Niran, YOU HAVE LOST."

Wow, the caps really convinced me. That's a great argument. I could never use it since I'M WRONG!

Joshua, a namesake of mine. Pleased to meet you.

"An uncaused cause, without matter and outside of space and time. Awesome - where can I get me some of that"

Er, church?

"If there can only be one uncaused cause did that cause lose its ability to cause another cause?"

Um...let me see. No.

26/4/07 4:56 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
Well, you ain't Einstein either Krystalline. I guess we make a good pair.
I never claimed to be. Nor do I have delusions of grandeur.
But the law of conservation of matter also applies. So matter cannot just be created by energy. It can be converted into different forms of matter by energy. That's the problem. And matter also is infinite if your presupposition on energy holds. But I've given you reasons as to why that's not possible, and all you have to proffer in rebuttal is that it's lame. Wow, that's really convincing. You bowled me over with that piece of logic. Very clever.
You've given me diddly squat, except the fact that you think the 2 are so interrelated that energy can't exist w/o a counterpart in matter.
I thought the hotel analogy quite lame.
You tested my comprehension skills with that one all right.
That's obvious.
Must admit the latter part of that sounds just a tad bit incoherent.
Only to the extreme solipsist.
Matter and energy exist in a relationship of equivalence- wow that sounds good.
Glad you agree.
But really, the universe is matter and energy. This begs the question, how did the blessed system get here in the first place.
Fluctuations of energy. There, that wasn't too hard, was it?
No Sir. If it's uncaused, it wasn't caused you know, even by itself. It just was. Never knew the meaning of the word uncaused could be so utterly incomprehensible so as to warrant a torrent of really meaningful questions like "Oh it's uncaused? But what caused it?" and now this one from you. The conclusion that the uncaused cause created the universe can be a hypothesis, but I've shown you how it can be presented in deductive form also if you accept the premise that the universe exists.
Oh wow. How 'cosmic', dude.
Let me see if I got this right: everything HAS to have a cause. But what caused that? Something that DOESN'T have a cause, that's existed infinitely - even though you claim you've disproved infinity itself.
If you can't see how illogical that is, then discussion w/you is a waste of time.
Concede?
Oh no, you've lost. 'None so blind as those who will not listen', hehehehe.
Graceless, artless, bootless. Like a duck w/its foot nailed to the floor, you go round 'n round, "Quack, quack."

26/4/07 5:38 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Still waiting for Niran to demonstrate that an uncaused cause must be immaterial and that it must exist outside of the universe.

Waiting.. Waiting.. Waiting..

26/4/07 9:08 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

KA:

Infinity as a property only exists where niran says it does. It only exists if it applies to his gawd and nowhere else. Do I detect the case of special pleading once again?

Infinity doesn't exist except under the circumstances I describe. The argument is starting to smell like a pair of old mouldy underpants.

26/4/07 9:16 am  
Anonymous niran said...

Excellent, Bradley threw in the towel early and Krystalline has been reduced to witless one liners. I'm getting a little bored now. Bring on the next non theist!

But seriously, if your presupposition that energy is infinite flows from the conservation of energy, then the conservation of mass means that matter is also infinite. It's that simple really. And you keep repeating the non theist mantra about the hotel analogy. You think it's lame, so it's not a good argument. Must remember that one if I'm ever at loss for an argument! "Oh I rebutted that one, I called it lame!" This is ridiculous. Put a fight for Pete's sake.

"Let me see if I got this right: everything HAS to have a cause. But what caused that?"

You can try, but you keep getting it wrong my dear. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Infinities don't begin to exist. Problem is that matter and energy which are bound together can't be infinite. Immaterial infinities can exist, because time does not apply outside physical states. I know you'll pretend you don't get it, but I know you do. My premise is that you possess a smattering of intelligence. Can't say the same about Beep though. Let's see the next set of devastating one liners shall we... come on non theist, rally round the cause, our two crusaders here are wilting.

"Like a duck w/its foot nailed to the floor, you go round 'n round, "Quack, quack."

A duck. That's an improvement from dikkii who thought I was a "fuck". Beep, the quality of wit your friends display on this blog keeps improving, one letter at a time. Hats off.

26/4/07 10:49 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
Excellent, Bradley threw in the towel early and Krystalline has been reduced to witless one liners. I'm getting a little bored now. Bring on the next non theist!
Wow, it’s just so…embarassing when I peg you folks dead on. My ego is getting as swollen as yours. I made a prediction on my blog, to BBIM: you’ll make a prophet of me yet.
But seriously, if your presupposition that energy is infinite flows from the conservation of energy, then the conservation of mass means that matter is also infinite. It's that simple really.
I’m right again: your blinkers are on, & you’re not listening at all. Here, I’ll say it slowly: matter.is.not.infinite. energy.is. My ego’s so swollen, I’m about to tip over.
And you keep repeating the non theist mantra about the hotel analogy. You think it's lame, so it's not a good argument. Must remember that one if I'm ever at loss for an argument! "Oh I rebutted that one, I called it lame!" This is ridiculous. Put a fight for Pete's sake.
Nah, I’m getting a little tired of talking to myself.
You can try, but you keep getting it wrong my dear. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Infinities don't begin to exist.
There goes god, then.
Problem is that matter and energy which are bound together can't be infinite.
Matter’s bound to energy, but NOT VICE VERSA. How hard is this for you to grasp?
Immaterial infinities can exist, because time does not apply outside physical states.
Got proof? No? Speculation only.
I know you'll pretend you don't get it, but I know you do.
Obviously, I got it long ago. Another dishonest manuever: back-handed hominem.
My premise is that you possess a smattering of intelligence. Can't say the same about Beep though. Let's see the next set of devastating one liners shall we... come on non theist, rally round the cause, our two crusaders here are wilting.
Really, applauding yourself is just so…I feel embarassed FOR you.
Because you’re the only 1 doing it.
A duck. That's an improvement from dikkii who thought I was a "fuck". Beep, the quality of wit your friends display on this blog keeps improving, one letter at a time. Hats off.
Guess that’s what I get for having a battle of wits w/an unarmed man.
“That you do bend your eye on vacancy, and with the incorporeal air do hold discourse” – Hamlet.
Do continue your monologue - but the 'bravos' you hear are but your own, the happenstance of a mind in love w/itself.

26/4/07 11:10 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

But Ka an uncaused cause must exist which is infinite in scope because ummmmmm - he wants to define his gawd as an uncaused infinite cause.

Religious presuppositionalism is infinitely stinky.

26/4/07 11:28 am  
Anonymous niran said...

"Here, I’ll say it slowly: matter.is.not.infinite. energy.is"
from the sublime to the ridiculous. If the infinity of energy is presupposed from the law of conservation of energy, what presupposition should follow the law of the conservation of mass? Don't want to answer that one? I understand.

"There goes god, then."

This was in response to my comment that infinities don't begin to exist. God doesn't go anywhere because he's infinite and di not begin to exist. Any problems, real or otherwise?

"Guess that’s what I get for having a battle of wits w/an unarmed man."

Well, if name calling to the tune of "Duck" and "fuck" make up your armoury, there's not much of a battle is there?

Oh and by the way, I wasn't patting myself on the back or anything like that. i wasn't the one who asserted my victory in capital letters remember :-) I was just...exhorting the faithful non theist to tread where the lot of you have failed. It's called encouragement. Or challenge.

26/4/07 11:35 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Everything that begins to have an effect, has a cause.

If X began to have an effect, it has a cause.

If X began to have an effect, it is not uncaused.

If X is a divine being that began to have an effect, it is not uncaused.

If X doesn't begin to have an effect, it doesn't have a cause.

If X doesn't begin to have an effect, it is impotent without a cause.

If X is a divine being which doesn't begin to have an effect, it is impotent without a cause.

26/4/07 11:50 am  
Anonymous niran said...

"Everything that begins to have an effect, has a cause."

No, that's just saying that every entity in the causal chain has a cause. It's the same as saying that everything has a cause, which cannot be because if you conceive of something infinite(universe, UC), it cannot have been caused(since nothing could have preceded the infinite entity, nothing could have caused it). The problem for you is that the universe cannot have been infinite because it is physical. So the infinite entity that prevents the logically impossible infinite regression is an immaterial infinity. The uncaused cause.

26/4/07 12:23 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Niran:

I see you are beginning to learn something. I don't agree with your premises either.

26/4/07 12:43 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

How do you demonstrate that everything that begins to have an effect does not require a cause?

It is always a case of whether we accept each others premises. I don't accept yours either.

26/4/07 12:44 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Back to one of your premises.

"2. Things don’t pop into existence uncaused."

Special pleading - but gawd does.

26/4/07 12:48 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

This is niran's brain on gawd. Niran's Brain On Gawd

26/4/07 1:44 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
from the sublime to the ridiculous. If the infinity of energy is presupposed from the law of conservation of energy, what presupposition should follow the law of the conservation of mass? Don't want to answer that one? I understand.
Oh blogger please. Matter can be destroyed. Energy can't. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
This was in response to my comment that infinities don't begin to exist. God doesn't go anywhere because he's infinite and did not begin to exist. Any problems, real or otherwise?
Oh, bundles. Positing an unprovable 'mystery ingredient' for 1.
It's infinite regress, & you should heed the Gambler's song: "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away and know when to run."
I'll leave it to you to figure out if you should saunter or bolt.
Well, if name calling to the tune of "Duck" and "fuck" make up your armoury, there's not much of a battle is there?
Well, I never said the latter thing, for 1. For another, I've been goin' kinda easy on you, old son.
Oh and by the way, I wasn't patting myself on the back or anything like that. i wasn't the one who asserted my victory in capital letters remember :-) I was just...exhorting the faithful non theist to tread where the lot of you have failed. It's called encouragement. Or challenge.
Or arrogance & condescension.
Apparently, victory is in the eye of the beholder.

1. If X began to have an effect, it has a cause.
Right here, your logic shatters straight across. If X is the 'uncaused cause', it had an effect by creating the universe, no?
2. If X began to have an effect, it is not uncaused.
See comment for #1.
3. If X is a divine being that began to have an effect, it is not uncaused.
Then you're arguing for a 'caused cause'.
4. If X doesn't begin to have an effect, it doesn't have a cause.
Again, your logic goes right down the crapper. The 'uncaused cause' 'caused' the universe to happen.
5. If X doesn't begin to have an effect, it is impotent without a cause.
Or doesn't exist.
6. If X is a divine being which doesn't begin to have an effect, it is impotent without a cause.
Time for some divine Cialis then, I think.
There.
I'd advise you run for the hills, partner.

26/4/07 1:49 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

"Oh blogger please. Matter can be destroyed. Energy can't. Are you being deliberately obtuse?"

Hehehe. So the non theist has to deny scientific fact to defend his position! I think the debate ends here. And they say the theist rejects science. Have you ever heard of the Law of Conservation of matter. Maybe not. Just read up on it. Go back to school dude. here's the wikipedia entry on it

"law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as law of mass/matter conservation (or the Lomonosov-Lavoisier law), states that the mass of a closed system of substances will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. An equivalent statement is that matter changes form, but cannot be created nor destroyed. "

if you want to continue down this moronic path while denying scientific laws, good for you. But that was admittedly strange. Never really heard an out and out repudiation of scientific law in a debate. Interesting. Is this what non theism rests on???

I'm wondering whether i even need to say anything else. I really didn't mean to embarrass you this way. You brought it upon yourself. Let's just pretend this never happened shall we? Ok, good boy. We all learn from our mistakes.If you become a Christian, i promise I won't mention it again. Just kidding :-)

"If X is the 'uncaused cause', it had an effect by creating the universe, no"

Yes, but this does not necessitate X being caused. So the whole deductive sequence just collapses at this stage. In other words, it's just bollocks. Very much like the assertion that mass can be destroyed.

26/4/07 4:04 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

Now that we've disposed of Krystalline little unscientific diversion, let's look at your question Beep.

"How do you demonstrate that everything that begins to have an effect does not require a cause?"

Because infinities cannot be caused, and they can begin to have an effect. So since infinities logically cannot be caused, not everything that begins to have an effect must have a cause. It's not about accepting or denying each other's premises, it's about testing them for logical consistency and validity. Your premise just fails the test of logic.

I accepted however that what logically valid was not necessarily true. But the point is that the when logically only three options can exist that are mutually exclusive (and you have not challenged this with an argument), the elimination of two alternatives due to their being logically problematic, points in the direction of the only remaining alternative.

26/4/07 4:24 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
Hehehe. So the non theist has to deny scientific fact to defend his position! I think the debate ends here. And they say the theist rejects science. Have you ever heard of the Law of Conservation of matter. Maybe not. Just read up on it. Go back to school dude. here's the wikipedia entry on it
Oh wow, you are a sore loser, ain't ya? Here's the definition from the Science & Technology Encyclopedia:
"The principle of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, although it can be changed from one form to another. Thus in any isolated or closed system, the sum of all forms of energy remains constant. The energy of the system may be interconverted among many different forms—mechanical, electrical, magnetic, thermal, chemical, nuclear, and so on—and as time progresses, it tends to become less and less available; but within the limits of small experimental uncertainty, no change in total amount of energy has been observed in any situation in which it has been possible to ensure that energy has not entered or left the system in the form of work or heat. For a system that is both gaining and losing energy in the form of work and heat, as is true of any machine in operation, the energy principle asserts that the net gain of energy is equal to the total change of the system's internal energy."
When matter is 'destroyed', it changes it's form to that of energy.
Consider yourself schooled, you daft twat.
if you want to continue down this moronic path while denying scientific laws, good for you. But that was admittedly strange. Never really heard an out and out repudiation of scientific law in a debate. Interesting. Is this what non theism rests on???
You're just all mouth & trousers. Bow out gracefully: I'll let you.
I'm wondering whether i even need to say anything else. I really didn't mean to embarrass you this way. You brought it upon yourself. Let's just pretend this never happened shall we? Ok, good boy. We all learn from our mistakes.If you become a Christian, i promise I won't mention it again. Just kidding :-)
Yeah, you sure are. I'm not embarrassed at all (well, perhaps for you.)
Nice try, no cigar. I don't let people change definitions in midstream.
Yes, but this does not necessitate X being caused. So the whole deductive sequence just collapses at this stage. In other words, it's just bollocks. Very much like the assertion that mass can be destroyed.
A strawman. Yes, it DOES necessitate X being caused.
You lost. Man up, & admit it. Your entire diatribe's built on sand. The house fell down, & saying it ain't so don't make it so.
Really, I've had better chats w/young earth creationists (& they're about as confused as you are).
If this is the creme-de-creme of theism (shakes his head), I predict religion's going to die out w/in the next decade or so.
This was too easy.

26/4/07 4:26 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

Ha ha. The more cornered you are, the angrier you get.

I picked the database of your choice and here's the definition of the conservation of matter

"conservation of mas"

the principle that in any closed system subjected to no external forces, the mass is constant irrespective of its changes in form; the principle that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Also called law of conservation of mass, conserva'tion of mat'ter.

Brilliant, no? Still want to continue this utterly unscientific tomfoolery? I'll try and sday this politely. I've no problem with the conservation of energy. Your deductions however based on conservation of energy violate the law of conservation of matter. That means.... the deductions are wrong!! You said matter can be destroyed. If you read the above definition, you'll realise that it cannot. Name calling doesn't take away from the fact that your position is just plain wrong. It's just bad science, that's all. Pick up the pieces and fight another day mate. You've been destroyed.

26/4/07 4:41 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Einstein Explains the Equivalence of Energy and Matter

26/4/07 5:21 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "Because infinities cannot be caused, and they can begin to have an effect."

Read this as - "I argued against the existence of infinity, but now I want my gawd to represent infinity, so obviously an infinity is uncaused - in other words, infinity is ok as long as I get to call it gawd."

(This guy is about a 10 on the whacko scale.)

26/4/07 5:28 pm  
Anonymous Archangel said...

oops. I see a blooper. I hope this was just a misunderstanding or else there's reason for a lot of disappointment.

Here's my concern:
It is scientific law that matter remains constant, is it not? And this applies to energy also. Thus, it is not possible to create or destroy matter or energy.

What you seem to suggest dear Krystalline, is that matter when destroyed becomes energy. If this is true, new energy is effectively created. But this, as you have already intimated, is not possible since you cannot create new energy.

Contradiction! Oh no!

But the scientific law, plain and simple, is that matter and energy remain constant thereby preserving the the law of conservation of mass.

I sense desperation.

A theist teaches an atheist science. Whatever in heavens next?

Thank you for reading.

26/4/07 5:41 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Humans notice effects, we assign causes to those effects later.

Example: "What is the effect of a glass hitting the floor?" Depending on the floor and the strength of the glass, it is most probably shattered.

So, if we walk into the room and we see a shattered glass on the floor, we see the effect of the brittle object after it has impacted upon a hard surface.

Unless we watched the glass fall; unless we dropped the glass; or we viewed how the glass made contact with the floor; or unless someone owns up to smashing the glass - we do NOT know the cause. What we do know is that when, or if something begins to have an effect, it has a cause.

So, it is easy to acknowledge the effect of the glass hitting the floor.

What is not such an easy task is to determine the cause of the effect. (That is, the cause of the effect of the glass hitting the floor.)

There are multitudenous possible causes for the effect of the shattered glass. There are at least as many as I can imagine and that is only limited by my imagination, assuming that my imagination has a limit; but usually we hone these down to probabilities.


1. The glass was dropped by someone.
2. The glass was knocked off the table by a pet.
3. The glass was knocked off the table by a curtain which was blown by the wind.
4. Or, cause unknown.

Cause unknown doesn't mean there wasn't a cause.

The cause may be unknown, but as we have viewed an effect, we know that there was a cause. That is - Everything that begins to have an effect on something else, has a cause.

Theists in arguments jump from "cause unknown" when they witness an effect - to gawd.

This is most unsatisfactory as gawd is just a human created construct to explain an unknown. It is a human creation as the properties of X (gawd), become whatever they attribute them to be. In the case of previous arguments, those properties have consisted of 1. uncaused. 2. immaterial 3. and existing outside time and space (the universe), where it is magically assumed to be unbound by the laws of physics. Talk about an appeal to ignorance and special pleading.

This is religious presuppositionalism in its most insidious and intellectually dishonest form which is why theists may be onvinced by such as argument, but rarely anyone else.

26/4/07 10:46 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

By the way:

The conservation of mass is not universally applicable. It applies only at speeds significantly lower than that of light. Close to the speed of light, mass begins to convert to energy.

26/4/07 10:54 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Ha ha. The more cornered you are, the angrier you get.
You flatter yourself unduly, I think.
Brilliant, no? Still want to continue this utterly unscientific tomfoolery? I'll try and say this politely. I've no problem with the conservation of energy. Your deductions however based on conservation of energy violate the law of conservation of matter.
This is getting just silly.
Definition of Matter:

1. Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole.
2. Physics. Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.
Definitions of Energy:
”Any particle or system of particles subject to conservative forces has two kinds of energy, potential energy and kinetic energy. Potential energy is the energy due to position or configuration, and kinetic energy is the energy due to motion.”
That means.... the deductions are wrong!! You said matter can be destroyed.
Sure it can. Set fire to a piece of paper – no longer a piece of paper. It’s destroyed. But it becomes ash, smoke, etc.
If you read the above definition, you'll realise that it cannot. Name calling doesn't take away from the fact that your position is just plain wrong. It's just bad science, that's all. Pick up the pieces and fight another day mate. You've been destroyed.
-YAWN- This is getting boring.

archangel:
It is scientific law that matter remains constant, is it not? And this applies to energy also. Thus, it is not possible to create or destroy matter or energy.
|8 - energy and matter remains constant in an isolated system.
Thus, it is not possible to create or destroy matter or energy.
See above. Energy is converted, if any of the definitions aren't so volatile for you theists.

But the scientific law, plain and simple, is that matter and energy remain constant thereby preserving the the law of conservation of mass.

Doing the same thing as Niran.
I'm not going to re-explain it all over again.
I assume we're all adults here, capable of some reading comprehension?
I've already defined my terms: yet somehow, somebody wants to move the goalposts.
Shame, really.

27/4/07 12:25 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Ahem. I don't accept your premise that - "But the point is that logically only three options can exist that are mutually exclusive."

And just how are you going to demonstrate that only 3 options are possible?

27/4/07 12:49 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

1.The concepts of cause and effect only apply within time.

2.No time, no effect.

3.No time, no effect, no cause.

4.Outside of time and space equals impotence.

5.Therefore if gawd is outside of space and time, he is impotent. :(

6.Not only is he impotent, but he can't even play with his foreskin collection.

27/4/07 1:13 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

BBIM:
6.Not only is he impotent, but he can't even play with his foreskin collection.
Oh, haven't you learned by now? Only Niran (in his infinite wisdom) can make witty, scathing jokes. Only Niran (in his infinite wisdom) has all the answers. Only Niran (in his infinite wisdom) can use any logic (stilted as it is).
All hail, Niran! Master of the Universe, Keeper of the Keys of Wisdom, who sees All, knows All, is triumphant ere his arrival! Who is so far above us non-believers, that we are not fit to tie his shoes!
(& if you believe that, I got some prime swampland real estate I can sell ya.)
But seriously:
I had this cat's # a looonngg time ago.
This ad infinitum argument is trending toward entropy at an alarming rate.

27/4/07 2:56 am  
Anonymous niran said...

"Wait, hold on a minute: have you "heard of thermodynamics?
Einsteinian relativity maintains that space & time are interlocked.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics stipulates that everything tends towards disorder/entropy.
Matter is composed of energy. Energy (& matter) occupy space, ergo, all energy (& matter) by the transitive value, is bound by time.
There is simply NOTHING that isn't shackled by the chains of time."

You know who said that Krystalline. You did. So even if we were to ignore your obvious anti science stance, you posited yourself that energy is bound by time. According to the Hilbert Hotel, that means that the infinity of energy( and matter) is impossible. Your only response to the Hilbert Hotel is that it's lame. Very clever. Teeny boppers use that word to critique the wardrobe choices of their peers! Shows to what level the quality of argument of the non theist has fallen.

"Set fire to a piece of paper – no longer a piece of paper. It’s destroyed. But it becomes ash smoke, etc."

Er no. Matter or mass has not been destroyed there. It has been converted to another form. From paper to smoke and ash. Same with energy, cannot be destroyed but can be converted to another form. If the word you use for conversion of matter is destruction of matter, the same linguistic usage would deem that energy can be destroyed since it it can be converted. Your argument is just nonsensical Krytsalline. Concede. There's no way out. Lot's of atheists must be embarrassed that the non theist here got a good education in science at the hands of a theist. It's really funny.

And lots of thoughtful Sri Lankan atheists(read disco and Anisha on ADD and others) and agnostics will peruse this blog and cringe at the manner in which another atheist has been decimated. Had a chat with Anisha a while ago, who i debated on ADD and he had nothing but contempt for your types. What will these guys ever think when they get to know that you just denied a scientific law.

27/4/07 6:31 am  
Anonymous niran said...

"The conservation of mass is not universally applicable. It applies only at speeds significantly lower than that of light. Close to the speed of light, mass begins to convert to energy."

Ya, and energy has been proved to convert to matter. What's your point? Does this mean that the conservation of energy is not universally applicable?

"And just how are you going to demonstrate that only 3 options are possible?"

I've said it before on this very thrwad, so here's the cut and post job-

"Also Bradley, I'm not assuming that there are only three possibilities. It's almost self evident. Step 1, the universe was either caused or uncaused. It cannot be neither caused nor uncaused. If caused, you kep regressing infinitely in causes or you don't. You can't avoid regressing infinitely while avoiding stopping at a certain point. It's logically impossible. So there you have your three alternatives. It was either caused or uncaused, if caused it was either due to infinite regress or an uncaused cause."

"The concepts of cause and effect only apply within time."

Not really. Physical effects only apply within time, but immaterial causes and effects do not invoke time. The assumption is plain wrong.

27/4/07 7:27 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "Immaterial causes and effects do not invoke time."

And just what is your example of something which is immaterial? Spirits? Gods? Demons?

Tsk Tsk @ you for trying to suggest to an atheist that:

1.spirits exist
2.gods exist
3.demons exist
4. great aunt mabel's spirit exists outside time and space and that she is busy helping god catalogue his extensive foreskin collection.

Tsk tsk for not only assuming that they exist through religious faith, but attempting to state that they are a necessity when it is obvious that an atheist is not going to accept this premise as true. Not many scientists, religious or not, are going to accept this premise as part of a scientific argument either and you ARE trying to make your argument a scientific one.

Just go back to saying - "Gawd did it" - as trying to posit spirits as a necessity, when the concept of the supernatural requires faith; is a waste of time.

27/4/07 10:55 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Your concept of an immaterial being, Gawd, existing outside of time and space and hence not subject to the laws of physics, is an appeal to ignorance.

IMMATERIAL: "Of no importance or relevance; inconsequential or irrelevant. 2. Having no material body or form."

The dictionary says it so succinctly.

27/4/07 11:09 am  
Anonymous niran said...

I'm using it in the sense of the second definition. Non matter, matterless, immaterial.

27/4/07 11:36 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

niran:

Sorry, you don't get to pick which dictionary definition you like.

And your examples of the immaterial are?

Oooops... gawd? Is that gawd with or without a foreskin? Just checking.

27/4/07 12:39 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

But I' using your dictionary definition. The second definition provided by yourself.

God is a pretty good example of an infinite immaterial entity. You're catching on, but there's room for improvement.

"Is that gawd with or without a foreskin? Just checking."

Maybe you're only getting some in your dreams, because that's the only way foreskin could be immaterial. You need a device, preferably a battery operated one.

27/4/07 1:17 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Gawd requires faith. Your argument is that we should have faith that the immaterial exists because it supports your argument.

Sorry - that is an appeal to ignorance.

27/4/07 1:21 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Now, what other examples can you offer me of the immaterial?

The immaterial has no importance or relevance. It is consequential or irrelevant. It is inconsequential because it has no material body or form and hence it has no properties.

Ooooops. Gawd is impotent again. (By the way, is his foreskin collection immaterial too?) Just wondering.

27/4/07 1:24 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Poor gawd, as an immaterial thingee, he has no properties. Except of course, the ones that people of religious faith make up for him.

Awwwwwwww....

Just imagine, thousands of years of guys sacrificing a bit of their dick to something which is immaterial and hence impotent.

The above thought expressed in this way: - "Here you are gawd. Don't feel so bad. I know you are impotent, but you can have a bit of my dick if it makes you feel better."

27/4/07 1:35 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Niran:
You know who said that Krystalline. You did.
Yeah, repeatin’ yourself.
So even if we were to ignore your obvious anti science stance,
Dude, you ARE kidding me.
you posited yourself that energy is bound by time. According to the Hilbert Hotel, that means that the infinity of energy( and matter) is impossible.
If energy can’t be created or destroyed, the final product is…???
Er no. Matter or mass has not been destroyed there. It has been converted to another form. From paper to smoke and ash. Same with energy, cannot be destroyed but can be converted to another form. If the word you use for conversion of matter is destruction of matter, the same linguistic usage would deem that energy can be destroyed since it it can be converted.
ROFLMAO! Man, your semantic gymnastics are pretty, but fairly stupid.
Your argument is just nonsensical Krytsalline. Concede. There's no way out. Lot's of atheists must be embarrassed that the non theist here got a good education in science at the hands of a theist. It's really funny.
I’ll never concede: I’m not wrong.
And lots of thoughtful Sri Lankan atheists(read disco and Anisha on ADD and others) and agnostics will peruse this blog and cringe at the manner in which another atheist has been decimated.
You just bring them. They can speak for themselves.
Had a chat with Anisha a while ago, who i debated on ADD and he had nothing but contempt for your types.
Well, then, let Anisha speak for him/herself. Otherwise, I should care why? What ‘types’? For that matter, why should I give a fuck what Anisha thinks? (Oh, oops, sorry to break your ‘cardinal’ rule: NO SWEARING ALLOWED.)
What will these guys ever think when they get to know that you just denied a scientific law.
I did no such thing. Why should peer pressure have anything to do w/it?
Oh, I see: projection. I’m worried about what other atheists think, is that it? I’ve had my fair share of battling other atheists. I’m not a teenager, you mook. I’m a grown man.
Because I’m my own man – I fight my own battles, alone.
Thus far, your logical fallacies are stacking up pretty high. NTM your overweaning pride.
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, BTW.
You've won nothing.

27/4/07 2:24 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

I perused the entirety of that last post to see whether you had preferred at least one argument. I understand you are in a position where you cannot(given that you've just 'violated' the laws of conservation of mass and energy explicitly), but the maxim "silence is Golden" was probably never more relevant. But you know you lost and I know you know because you've just stopped defending yourself suddenly, so thanks for the debate. It was a lot of fun.

27/4/07 3:02 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

niran:

What? No examples of immaterial thingies?

Your appeal to ignorance was unsuccessful. As I stated to you early in the debate, the kalam cosmo argument only appeals to people who already believe in the existence of supernatural beings who collect foreskins.

27/4/07 3:13 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

I can't observe other immaterial things so I wouldn't be able to give you examples unless the immaterial thing was a logical necessity. Which I have proved to be so, given that the logical alternatives can't be true. I've proved that the UC is an immaterial logical necessity, so even though I don't observe, logically it must exist.

Your friends have really failed the cause haven't they Beep. What's happening?

27/4/07 3:40 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

LOL@ an immaterial thing as a logical necessity.

That was pretty funny. What is even funnier is that this "immaterial necessity" collects foreskins.

People comment here if they want to. No one is under any compulsion to do so. So, I don't require people to back me up, nor did I ask anyone atheists, skeptics or agnostics to come here and post their comments.

This is in complete contradiction to your own actions. Unlike yourself, I was not busy copying and pasting replies to get advice.

An immaterial being can only have the properties that are dreamt up for it as an immaterial thingee is not evidenced. If you want to believe that there is an immaterial being that wants you to wipe your arsehole with one hand, and eat with the other - that is your insanity. Just don't expect others to share it with you.

27/4/07 4:15 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

In any case, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not Moslem. ut if all this talk of foreskin titillates you, go right ahead.

27/4/07 4:16 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Not muslim? You mean that this immaterial necessity isn't allah?

"Allah's snackbar!" - You are for the chop mate.

27/4/07 4:20 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Positing the idea of an immaterial necessity is the same as saying - "We don't know, therefore gawd."

AKA - an appeal to ignorance.

27/4/07 4:21 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

You know, this may make for an interesting sociological study, as to how the lewd profanities, racist comments and just desperate diversionary talk emerges from one side when the ship is sinking.

If all you can do is laugh at the idea of an immaterial logical necessity, it means that you have no real argument to stand on. You atheists are supposed to be rational, scientific and objective, Instead we have fundamentalists who don't know how to respond to defeat. People who are not even tolerant of arguments they cannot rebut. Individuals who can only start yelling in filth at the person who proves them wrong. Go right ahead, you all know I won and are damn angry about it. :-) Take it out on me, I don't care. Goodbye.

27/4/07 4:26 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

There is nothing rational about imagining that something which is immaterial has the ability to do anything.

And, don't go all girly on me and complain about insults - the history of the insults started on the other blog, and you continued them here. Be a man for goodness sakes. Stop whining about things you initiated yourself.

27/4/07 4:53 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence"

The radioactive decay of an atom is scientifically proven to be both uncaused and have a beginning. This demonstrates that things can exist, and begin to exist, and be uncaused.

You lose.

27/4/07 5:07 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Bye for now, and thanks for all the fish.

27/4/07 5:07 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
I perused the entirety of that last post to see whether you had preferred at least one argument.
I did, but your swollen ego missed it.
I understand you are in a position where you cannot(given that you've just 'violated' the laws of conservation of mass and energy explicitly), but the maxim "silence is Golden" was probably never more relevant.
Interesting claim, for someone who declared victory at the beginning of the entire thread.
But you know you lost and I know you know because you've just stopped defending yourself suddenly, so thanks for the debate. It was a lot of fun.
Nah, got tired of arguing w/an adolescent, is all.
Hope you grow up some day.
Tah.

28/4/07 12:00 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Oh, niran, BTW:
You've been debunked.
Just so you know.

28/4/07 3:54 am  
Blogger Mesoforte said...

Tossing my hat in.

niran

If you agree that the universe exists, then you've got a few alternatives to explain its existence... you can have only 3 logical alternatives, since the universe was EITHER caused OR uncaused. If it was caused, it is EITHER by infinite regression OR uncaused cause.

I think the questions of how causality is applied to the universe as a whole and what does causality mean outside of the conceptual framework of the universe should be asked before we can ever establish whether or not the universe was caused into existence.

Secondly, you leave out the option of a causal primary, ie the metaphysical basis for the concept of causality. It does not require explanation, because it makes explanation possible; it is the basis for all causal interactions. Existence, the causal primary is presupposed by all causal processes- all motion and change.

5. An actual infinite regress of physical causes is impossible.

...

9. Since the uncaused cause never began to exist, the uncaused cause is infinite.


How do you distinguish between "physical" and "non-physical" causes? I'm relatively sure that causality works along with physical forces as far as humans have seen it. To suddenly imply that causality can work through non-physical forces seems to be a massive assumption on your part. I'm thinking that by non-physical you mean immaterial, or something that is not a part of this universe.

Even if valid, your argument is only capable of demonstrating the existence of a mysterious first cause sometime in the distant past, it doesn't establish the present existence of the first cause. In fact, even if I accepted this argument, the most it can demostrate is that something has existed which is itself uncaused.

However, you might object to this last remark claiming that not only must there be a first cause, but this cause cannot be part of the natural universe. The universe does not explain the reason for its own existence, but a supernatural cause does provide us with an explanation. This transcendent first cause therefore explains the previously unexplained.

However, considering a transcendant (which means we don't have vocabulary to desribe it) first cause amounts to this, "An unknowable being using unkowable methods "caused" the universe to snap into existence." This is to say that the universe's existence cannot be explained. Doesn't do well as a causal explanation.

The problem in your argument is that you assume that the universe, the totality of exstence, needs a causal explanation. When we are talking about the cause of something, whether it be an entity or event, we are asking for the entity or action of an entity (prior event) that caused it. Causal explanation is possible only within the context of existence.

"What caused the universe?" is an absurd question, because before something can act as a cause, it must first exist- ie it must be a part of the universe. The universe sets the foundation for causal explanation and cannot itself require a causal explanation. Discussing causality outside of the universe is like talking about a bird's flight without air.

Until you can talk about causality in terms of non-existence (outside the universe) your argument remains incomprehensible.

You haven't proved however that things do pop into existence, only that we don't know why somethings happen. So #2 is as self evident an assumption as 1.

Self-evident, huh. I actually heard this from a theist- "When someone says that something is self-evident, they don't have any evidence for it, but they sure hope that you do."

You can try, but you keep getting it wrong my dear. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Infinities don't begin to exist. Problem is that matter and energy which are bound together can't be infinite. Immaterial infinities can exist, because time does not apply outside physical states.

Wait wait wait wait! How can something that is "outside of time" act as a causal factor? Causality requires time. Without time, there can be no causal chain. Something outside of time can never get anything done.

28/4/07 2:56 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

Only if debunking a couple of scientific laws were that easy Krystalline.

Mesaforte, those are very good questions, but I'm tied up for time at the moment. I'll respond later tomorrow. My country is in the World Cup finals playing Australia today and I'm not going to be at home. Cosmology is the last thing on my mind. The country is at war and cricket is the only thing that brings everyone together, so the partying starts now. Hope you understand. Regards,

28/4/07 4:01 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
Only if debunking a couple of scientific laws were that easy Krystalline.
Obviously, English is your 2nd language.
I wonder why you have problems w/the word YOU?

29/4/07 5:32 am  
Anonymous niran said...

Uh, American English was always a little dodge, but you don't debunk a person. You debunk an argument. Maybe they didn't teach you that when you were taught English.

29/4/07 11:56 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Perhaps they didn't teach you that offering up your foreskin to a god is a pagan fertility cult.

29/4/07 1:56 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
Uh, American English was always a little dodge, but you don't debunk a person. You debunk an argument.
I'd advise that you look that term up.
Maybe they didn't teach you that when you were taught English.
Mother tongue, junior, mother tongue.

29/4/07 2:07 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

"Perhaps they didn't teach you that offering up your foreskin to a god is a pagan fertility cult."

Ok, and are you a member of that cult? Because you've displayed a real fetish for foreskins. I'm not interested,

"Mother tongue, junior, mother tongue."
Ouch. Sorry man. I don't share your fascination for incestuous making out. Mother didn't teach you much did she?

29/4/07 6:04 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

niran:

You ning-nong. I am a woman. I am not silly enough to believe that a bit of penis skin is going to be favourable to any god.

29/4/07 6:10 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

*besides the quite liberal use of the tongue

29/4/07 6:13 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

Then that makes two of us Beep. I'm actually a Christian. But don't let me stop you talking about your fave thing in the world.

29/4/07 6:14 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

It is not demanded accrodng to the bible, that christians are circumcised, yet many of them are. I suspect they are mostly wannabe jews or wannabe muslims.

29/4/07 6:54 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

I haven't checked what the majority of Christians do to their penises and it doesn't interest me so I wouldn't know.

29/4/07 7:05 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Maybe you should check it out. Who knows. Maybe you too would like to snip a bit off for gawd.

29/4/07 9:13 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

If you want to mutilate yourself, go right ahead.

29/4/07 11:00 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
Ouch. Sorry man. I don't share your fascination for incestuous making out. Mother didn't teach you much did she?
'Mother tongue' is a reference to that fact that I was raised speaking it, you pervert.

30/4/07 12:54 am  
Anonymous niran said...

What happened to freedom of speech? Come on, don't tell me you're not up for some lighthearted punning on words.

30/4/07 2:19 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
I don't know how they do things in Sri Lanka, but here in the US, you can get popped in the mouth for crap like that.
Free speech notwithstanding.
Teenager status confirmed.

30/4/07 6:08 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Now now. Let's insult nicely. (Contradiction in terms perhaps.)

Foreskin jokes are allowed because I am a woman and I have always found the ides of snipping off bits of the genitals for a religious belief to be quite weird.

There is the circumcision and massacre of the Shechemites (Genesis 34:1-35:5), the hundred foreskin dowry (1 Samuel 18:25-27

The bible never fails to amaze me in its absurdity.

30/4/07 10:18 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Now now. Let's insult nicely.
But he started it (the little boy said, his lower lip curled, pouting).

30/4/07 3:16 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

"I don't know how they do things in Sri Lanka, but here in the US, you can get popped in the mouth for crap like that."

So what? In America you can get your head blown off because you weren't nice to your dorm mate. What's your point?

30/4/07 4:09 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

And in Sri Lanka you can get your arse blown off in a religious fracas.

30/4/07 5:09 pm  
Anonymous niran said...

Actually didn't that happen on Bondi beach a few months ago?

30/4/07 6:08 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Nope.

1/5/07 7:20 am  
Blogger breakerslion said...

Yoicks!

Got room for another kibitzer?

"Further, energy does not exist outside spacetime."

How would you know?

1/5/07 7:22 am  
Anonymous niran said...

"Nope."

Ok. I know it happened. Was all over the news.

1/5/07 8:17 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

niran:

People in australia did not blow each other up. They had a bit of a biff session brought on by ignorance, stupidity and racism.

Those sorts of biff sessions can be seen any day of the week at a family BBQ, but on a smaller scale. :)

1/5/07 9:06 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

I long for the good old days when gawd was sitting on his cloud in heaven with his angels feeding him grapes and shooting down thunderbolts upon the unwary.

God has had to move house to outside the inquisitive purvue of humans to "outside the universe" - (a concept that the ancients were unfamiliar with, but let's not let the bible get in the way of a modern justification for the existence of gawd.)

So there he sits, draped I suppose in his immaterial foreskin coat of many colours, scratching away in his immaterial book of judgement with his immaterial pen.

The poor bugger. Someone should tell him to get a haircut and get a real job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOCDoKsXjP0

1/5/07 9:19 am  
Blogger Mesoforte said...

Yoicks!

Is that an actual word, or just a random sound?

Other than that, niran you've had plenty of time to think of a responce, so hurry it up.

3/5/07 1:01 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home