(November 5, 2017 at 8:23 pm)Hammy Wrote: Here's my beliefs:

Free will either doesn't exist or the concept of "free will" is so trivially true that it's useless and empty.

The past and future do not exist but instead existed and will exist respectively.

Compatabilism with regards to "free will" is analogous to pantheism with regards to "god".

Then you are science denier.

Four-dimensional space-time is an integral part of general relativity. It cannot be discarded. You cannot have general relativity without 4-D space-time. And general relativity is a testable theory which has withstood every attempt to falsify it for over 100 years. The GPS system even uses a formula from general relativity which predicts how much faster the clocks on the satellites will tick because of their reduced gravity compared to what is felt on Earth's surface. That formula is derived from the 4-D space-time model. It's not something you can just toss away because it doesn't gel with the way your brain seems to be wired. 4-D space-time is real - whether you can wrap your head around it or not. Pretending it doesn't exist is no different than creationists pretending evolution doesn't exist.

(November 5, 2017 at 8:53 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(November 5, 2017 at 8:22 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I stopped reading his claims about a year ago. Talking about brain loss is certainly more interesting don't you think?

Actual loss of brain mass is a real thing, so yes.

Shooting from hip BSE springs to mind and it's human equivalent which name escapes me. In any event the operative word is "spongiform". It is frankly eerie to see what that does to the brain.

Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease and/or Kuru.

Makin me hungry for long pork.

(November 5, 2017 at 10:31 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(November 5, 2017 at 8:53 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Actual loss of brain mass is a real thing, so yes.

Shooting from hip BSE springs to mind and it's human equivalent which name escapes me. In any event the operative word is "spongiform". It is frankly eerie to see what that does to the brain.

Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease and/or Kuru.

Makin me hungry for long pork.

That's the one, thanks.

"long pork"? Sometimes I wonder how many people get that.

(November 5, 2017 at 9:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I got A+ in a logic philosophy course, I get A+ in computer science courses I take, I don't give a damn that my mind is fractured,

The Unabomber had an IQ of 167.  You are descending into madness.  You need help.

That's pretty close to Stephen Hawking's IQ. Who knew that Hawking was batshit crazy too?

---

(November 5, 2017 at 9:42 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: Then you are science denier.

Read an earlier post I made on this thread. I already anticipated that tiresome red herring. Science by definition cannot study non-experiential reality i.e. it only tests our experience of time not time itself. Science is phenomenologial not noumenological. You have no idea what I am talking about do you?

(November 6, 2017 at 1:29 am)Hammy Wrote:

(November 5, 2017 at 9:42 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: Then you are science denier.

Read an earlier post I made on this thread. I already anticipated that tiresome red herring. Science by definition cannot study non-experiential reality i.e. it only tests our experience of time not time itself. Science is phenomenologial not noumenological. You have no idea what I am talking about do you?

I did and it's bullshit.

We may not be able to directly confirm 4-D space-time but we sure as hell can falsify the theory of which it is an integral part. You can't make it go away that easily.

(November 5, 2017 at 3:03 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: So let us empahsize all the premises together:

1. If some element of freedom of will exists, then the future doesn't already exist.
2.  We know we have some freedom of will with respect to choices we make.
3. Therefore the future doesn't already exist.
4. Time passed away is growing.
5. If time is infinite, it would span endlessly in the future as it does in the past.
6. Therefore time is not infinite.
7. Therefore time is finite.
8. If time is finite, there is a start.
9. Now if start always existed it would be eternal.
10. Eternal implies it spans endlessly, yet it is just a "point" in time and time is finite both which contradicts this notion.
11. The first moment in time didn't always exist.
12. Something caused the first moment in time to exist.
13. A lawless state beyond time cannot all of a sudden implement rules to itself with no time to make the change available nor anything in motion.
14.  It is irrational to believe a stateless universe before time started time and all the rules that come with the universe.
15. The starter of time and space requires will and power.


Tell me disputed premise(s). Please do not attack conclusion with the argument. All the premises are explained, so don't just quote the premise and not address the reasoning showed for it.

With peace.

1-12 can be discarded on the basis of it being a mix of a lack of propositional relationships, absence of valid means of inference, redundant assertions, and incoherent rambling.

13 and 14 Are bare assertions, and..even if true, may not accurately represent what came before the big bang, if anything came before the big bang. I;d also strongly caution against their use by a god believer. Replace the terms "lawless state" and "stateless universe" with "god" and it should be easy to see why.

15 asserts the very thing you are attempting to prove with this "cold hard logic", this makes it useless as a premise...and if it's the conclusion....it doesn't follow from anything before it.

lol Khemical, the conclusion is "There is a being with will and power that created the universe". That would be 16, I didn't say "therefore" that, because I thought the conclusion was so obviously implied, as I never try to prove anything other than God.

All the other premises have been justified or at least attempted to be justified, except, I admit, I took for granted that we have free-will. Address what I stated regarding them. Not the summary.

Oh, is that the conclusion?  Then...

Quote:15 asserts the very thing you are attempting to prove with this "cold hard logic",

Try again.

The argument shows there is a starter, and I showed why a starter would require will and power.

(November 6, 2017 at 7:48 am)AFTT47 Wrote:

(November 6, 2017 at 1:29 am)Hammy Wrote: Read an earlier post I made on this thread. I already anticipated that tiresome red herring. Science by definition cannot study non-experiential reality i.e. it only tests our experience of time not time itself. Science is phenomenologial not noumenological. You have no idea what I am talking about do you?

I did and it's bullshit.

We may not be able to directly confirm 4-D space-time but we sure as hell can falsify the theory of which it is an integral part. You can't make it go away that easily.

"It's bullshit" is not a compelling argument.

Science deals with phenomena. The experience of time =/= time itself. It would help if you actually knew what science was addressing.

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

I always get the "It's bullshit" response from stupid people who don't understand stuff. It's bullshit as in, it's nonsense, as in, it doesn't make sense to you, as in, it doesn't make sense to you because you can't fucking grasp it and/or are unwilling to research what I'm actually talking about before you spout irrelevant shit about science. We're doing philosophy and logic here. Science deals with what we experience as humans.

Saying that what used to exist but no longer exists still exists or what will exist but doesn't exist yet already exists is just talking utter nonsense. You may as well say square circles are real because science. When science studies that the way we experience what we call "time" appears to be that way when we get into the physics of our experience of reality, that's very different to saying that a square can be a circle which is what you're saying by pretending that science is relevant to the arguments that are being made here. Regardless of what we seem to experience or whatever the science is about it, what existed but no longer exists by definition existed but no longer exists, what doesn't exist yet by definition doesn't exist yet, and to say that all times exist equally at the same time is more nonsense. The entirety of the science about time is wholly compatible with the philosophical notion that time itself is an illusion and all that really exists is the present because science then simply is studying the experience of that illusion. This is all something that you just clearly can't grasp.