(December 2, 2018 at 3:28 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

Working on a sunday. We humans do things that gods avoid even.

At work.

(December 2, 2018 at 4:23 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 3:28 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

Working on a sunday. We humans do things that gods avoid even.

Wot mate? It's Monday.

(December 2, 2018 at 3:10 pm)dr0n3 Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 6:25 am)Mathilda Wrote: No. It's called being scientifically literate.

I can assure you that you're anything but that. Your reasoning, in general, leaves much to be desired.

Quote:I did not use the word inefficient, although it is that as well. I used the inadequate. I have already explained several times. It reasons about reality as if it is made up of discrete objects when in fact these are arbitrary definitions. It does not take into account continuous and continual processes, chaos, complexity or thermodynamics which are fundamentally important to describing the nature of reality and why the world is as it currently is.

Take a snow flake for example. How would your logic be used to describe what causes a snow flake. Go on, try it. Now use your first order logic to explain why a snow flake has the shape that it does. First order logic is inadequate for doing so, but the same laws governing why and how a snowflake exist are behind why galaxies, solar systems, planets, chemistry, biology, abiogenesis, evolution and even intelligence and consequently society. And if you tried reasoning about them using first order logic you would not come up with much that was any use.

I'm not entirely sure why you're presupposing that logic is an all-encompassing science meant to explain everything and anything. That assumption you made is completely unwarranted and speaks volumes on your lack of knowledge. So much for the scientific literacy you've proudly proclaimed. Logic does not tell us how we ought to reason or infer in all particular cases, since it lacks the ability to deal with specifics. Its purpose, generally speaking, is to study reality's nature and the general relations it has to other things. The methodology is akin to abductive reasoning, wherein one makes observations, recognizes a pattern, presents a generalization, and infer the likeliest possible scenario. On that note, it is evident that your example is completely irrelevant and thus, not worth discussing.

Quote:Right. So the moment two H2O molecules formed a crystal inside a cup of water, was it a cup of ice or a cup of water?

That's a matter of semantics. Heck, call it a cup of blood if you wish so. The fact remains that causality is established as soon as the transition from cause to effect is complete, and that the properties of said cause and effect are qualitatively distinctive. That is, one could perceptually distinguish the different state of water that arose from the process of crystallization.

Quote:How does your first order logic describe a cup that is in the process of transitioning from a cup of water to a cup of ice?

It doesn't. That is why we teach chemistry. Again, what is your point?

(December 2, 2018 at 10:29 am)Rahn127 Wrote: I think perhaps you're missing the point.
Ice is a solid state of water. The structure changed.
Nothing was actually created or added to the environment.

Ice is the solid form of water.
The water exists. The ice didn't begin to exist.
The structure of the water that already existed changed.

With the tree branch and baseball bat.
The shape of the branch is altered. All the existing material is still there. The wood shaving on the ground we're part of the branch. They are now shavings.
The bat wasn't created. It was shaped.

It didn't begin to exist. We just changed the label as the shape of the branch was altered.

That is the distinction that needs to be made.

Ice forms naturally. It's not created. It didn't arrive out of nothing. Water was already there. Only the structure changed as the environmental factors changed.

We have the cosmos.
We have the forces of nature.
We have the energy of the universe.

This isn't nothing.

When those existing things change, like a snowflake, a universe is formed, not created. Formed.

What is laughable is that you've completely dismissed the substance on my argument by shifting the goalposts and putting words in my mouth. The appeal to creation ex nihilo is completely unwarranted, nowhere in my reasoning have I hinted that causality hinged upon the creation of energy through external interference. That interpretation is of your own doing, and I suspect your intellectual dishonesty is being at play here.

What you, and countless of other posters, have failed to grasp is that causality, in the case of water transitioning to ice, appeals to a concrete and distinct occurence of the interconnectedness of both events. In this light, causality can only be established if and only if, one can properly define and distinguish the qualitative properties that makes water what water is supposed to be, and ice what ice is supposed to be. Water ceases to be, qualitatively speaking, when the substance and qualities of ice appears to be discernible for it's previous liquid state at a point of time, and this, while concurring with the Law of Conservation of Energy. Furthermore, nitpicking over terms such as "created" "formed" or "existed" is a futile endeavor, since whatever choice of the term may be, the effect (ice) will always be distinctive from its cause (water), qualitatively speaking.


In a nutshell, it can be said that A is the cause of B, given that A can be qualitatively distinctive from B at a point of time. If A and B, can both be individuated  by their associated {substance, property, time} triple, the causal relatedness of A and B is said to have been established. Now, this is by no means a black and white represatation of how causality operates, there are alot more factors that needs to be taken into conisderation if one is to capture the complete dynamics and the intricate complexity of its nature.

I ask this with all sincerity....Are you high ?

(December 2, 2018 at 3:57 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 2:31 am)dr0n3 Wrote: God damn it, there goes another full bucket of puerile verbal diarrhoea, you seem to get the thrill out of it... but sadly, time is of the essence and I just can't be arsed to thwart each and every one of your piss-poor scattershot ad hominem attacks.

However, I must admit that GIF caught my attention and quite honestly - I'd love for you to name me your price.

(November 30, 2018 at 9:30 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Feel free to name the fallacy that you think I've committed by pointing out the problem with your argument and naming the species of fallacy it is.  I expect that you won't, and instead we'll hear more moronic bluster about how a fallacy is not fatal to a logical argument.

Expectation met!  


So, you're not going to name the fallacy you accused me of committing?  I thought so.  Loser.

The sheer level of immaturity that's on display is appalling, I'll put you anywhere between 12 to 16 years old.


As for the fallacy you've committed, you're more than welcome to visit this link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

(December 2, 2018 at 4:42 pm)Rahn127 Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 3:10 pm)dr0n3 Wrote: I can assure you that you're anything but that. Your reasoning, in general, leaves much to be desired.



I'm not entirely sure why you're presupposing that logic is an all-encompassing science meant to explain everything and anything. That assumption you made is completely unwarranted and speaks volumes on your lack of knowledge. So much for the scientific literacy you've proudly proclaimed. Logic does not tell us how we ought to reason or infer in all particular cases, since it lacks the ability to deal with specifics. Its purpose, generally speaking, is to study reality's nature and the general relations it has to other things. The methodology is akin to abductive reasoning, wherein one makes observations, recognizes a pattern, presents a generalization, and infer the likeliest possible scenario. On that note, it is evident that your example is completely irrelevant and thus, not worth discussing.



That's a matter of semantics. Heck, call it a cup of blood if you wish so. The fact remains that causality is established as soon as the transition from cause to effect is complete, and that the properties of said cause and effect are qualitatively distinctive. That is, one could perceptually distinguish the different state of water that arose from the process of crystallization.



It doesn't. That is why we teach chemistry. Again, what is your point?


What is laughable is that you've completely dismissed the substance on my argument by shifting the goalposts and putting words in my mouth. The appeal to creation ex nihilo is completely unwarranted, nowhere in my reasoning have I hinted that causality hinged upon the creation of energy through external interference. That interpretation is of your own doing, and I suspect your intellectual dishonesty is being at play here.

What you, and countless of other posters, have failed to grasp is that causality, in the case of water transitioning to ice, appeals to a concrete and distinct occurence of the interconnectedness of both events. In this light, causality can only be established if and only if, one can properly define and distinguish the qualitative properties that makes water what water is supposed to be, and ice what ice is supposed to be. Water ceases to be, qualitatively speaking, when the substance and qualities of ice appears to be discernible for it's previous liquid state at a point of time, and this, while concurring with the Law of Conservation of Energy. Furthermore, nitpicking over terms such as "created" "formed" or "existed" is a futile endeavor, since whatever choice of the term may be, the effect (ice) will always be distinctive from its cause (water), qualitatively speaking.


In a nutshell, it can be said that A is the cause of B, given that A can be qualitatively distinctive from B at a point of time. If A and B, can both be individuated  by their associated {substance, property, time} triple, the causal relatedness of A and B is said to have been established. Now, this is by no means a black and white represatation of how causality operates, there are alot more factors that needs to be taken into conisderation if one is to capture the complete dynamics and the intricate complexity of its nature.

I ask this with all sincerity....Are you high ?

I take this as a subtle way of letting the audience know that you've got nothing left to contribute. You may proceed to the nearest exit.

(December 2, 2018 at 3:57 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 2:31 am)dr0n3 Wrote: God damn it, there goes another full bucket of puerile verbal diarrhoea, you seem to get the thrill out of it... but sadly, time is of the essence and I just can't be arsed to thwart each and every one of your piss-poor scattershot ad hominem attacks.

However, I must admit that GIF caught my attention and quite honestly - I'd love for you to name me your price.

(November 30, 2018 at 9:30 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Feel free to name the fallacy that you think I've committed by pointing out the problem with your argument and naming the species of fallacy it is.  I expect that you won't, and instead we'll hear more moronic bluster about how a fallacy is not fatal to a logical argument.

Expectation met!  


So, you're not going to name the fallacy you accused me of committing?  I thought so.  Loser.

The sheer level of immaturity that's on display is appalling, I'll put you anywhere between 12 to 16 years old.

As for the fallacy you've committed, you're more than welcome to visit this link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

(December 2, 2018 at 4:42 pm)Rahn127 Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 3:10 pm)dr0n3 Wrote: I can assure you that you're anything but that. Your reasoning, in general, leaves much to be desired.



I'm not entirely sure why you're presupposing that logic is an all-encompassing science meant to explain everything and anything. That assumption you made is completely unwarranted and speaks volumes on your lack of knowledge. So much for the scientific literacy you've proudly proclaimed. Logic does not tell us how we ought to reason or infer in all particular cases, since it lacks the ability to deal with specifics. Its purpose, generally speaking, is to study reality's nature and the general relations it has to other things. The methodology is akin to abductive reasoning, wherein one makes observations, recognizes a pattern, presents a generalization, and infer the likeliest possible scenario. On that note, it is evident that your example is completely irrelevant and thus, not worth discussing.



That's a matter of semantics. Heck, call it a cup of blood if you wish so. The fact remains that causality is established as soon as the transition from cause to effect is complete, and that the properties of said cause and effect are qualitatively distinctive. That is, one could perceptually distinguish the different state of water that arose from the process of crystallization.



It doesn't. That is why we teach chemistry. Again, what is your point?


What is laughable is that you've completely dismissed the substance on my argument by shifting the goalposts and putting words in my mouth. The appeal to creation ex nihilo is completely unwarranted, nowhere in my reasoning have I hinted that causality hinged upon the creation of energy through external interference. That interpretation is of your own doing, and I suspect your intellectual dishonesty is being at play here.

What you, and countless of other posters, have failed to grasp is that causality, in the case of water transitioning to ice, appeals to a concrete and distinct occurence of the interconnectedness of both events. In this light, causality can only be established if and only if, one can properly define and distinguish the qualitative properties that makes water what water is supposed to be, and ice what ice is supposed to be. Water ceases to be, qualitatively speaking, when the substance and qualities of ice appears to be discernible for it's previous liquid state at a point of time, and this, while concurring with the Law of Conservation of Energy. Furthermore, nitpicking over terms such as "created" "formed" or "existed" is a futile endeavor, since whatever choice of the term may be, the effect (ice) will always be distinctive from its cause (water), qualitatively speaking.


In a nutshell, it can be said that A is the cause of B, given that A can be qualitatively distinctive from B at a point of time. If A and B, can both be individuated  by their associated {substance, property, time} triple, the causal relatedness of A and B is said to have been established. Now, this is by no means a black and white represatation of how causality operates, there are alot more factors that needs to be taken into conisderation if one is to capture the complete dynamics and the intricate complexity of its nature.

I ask this with all sincerity....Are you high ?

I take this as a subtle way of letting the audience know that you've got nothing left to contribute. You may proceed to the nearest exit.

dr0n3 - I asked if you were high because I explained the freezing of ice analogy as if I was talking to my 7 year old grandchild.

He would have understood it because I explained it in the most simplistic terms I know of.

And yet you didn't understand it.

That made me think that you must be high.
I didn't want to assume you're high.
Perhaps you have a reading comprehension issue.
I don't know, so I asked.

But you didn't answer.
Did you understand the question ?

(December 2, 2018 at 3:10 pm)dr0n3 Wrote: I'm not entirely sure why you're presupposing that logic is an all-encompassing science meant to explain everything and anything.

(November 26, 2018 at 10:47 pm)dr0n3 Wrote: Below is a copy-paste of my own thread that was posted in another forum. I'm reposting it here in hopes to spark an intelligent discourse on what I believe to be the most refined proof of God's existence.

Simple fact. You are trying to logic your god into existence as the first cause. You are trying to describe the very nature of reality using logic as a language. All I am doing is pointing out how logic is inadequate to describe the very nature of reality.

(December 2, 2018 at 3:10 pm)dr0n3 Wrote: The fact remains that causality is established as soon as the transition from cause to effect is complete

So what exactly is this causality? What exactly is established the moment the very last molecule of H2O freezes? It is physical? Does it actually exist? Or is it just something you say has been established in hindsight?

(December 1, 2018 at 7:03 am)Belaqua Wrote: The Stanford Encyclopedia backs me up on this. What they say confirms what I have read elsewhere.

The only difference between Kalaam and Aquinas is the idea of "efficient cause".

They still both follow the same pattern 1) Everything that exists must have a creator, 2) There must have been a time before anything existed 3) Therefore there must have been a first creator, 4) That creator must not have it's own creator (breaks premise 1) 5) That creator was god. QED

Now Aquinas' elaboration, as I said above is the assertion of "efficient cause" which has two parts 1) nothing can cause itself and 2) there must be a best way to create anything and that way must be the same for everything. All it is doing is adding extra assertions onto an original argument in order that in the mind of Aquinas the argument cannot now be used to logic up a generic god, but to specifically demand the christian god is the only answer.

The problem is still that the premises are assumed and that a number of them are mutually exclusive, either god has to have a creator or it is not part of the set Everything, therefore non-existent.

(December 2, 2018 at 7:13 pm)Wololo Wrote:

(December 1, 2018 at 7:03 am)Belaqua Wrote: The Stanford Encyclopedia backs me up on this. What they say confirms what I have read elsewhere.

The only difference between Kalaam and Aquinas is the idea of "efficient cause".

They still both follow the same pattern 1) Everything that exists must have a creator, 2) There must have been a time before anything existed 3) Therefore there must have been a first creator, 4) That creator must not have it's own creator (breaks premise 1) 5) That creator was god.  QED

Now Aquinas' elaboration, as I said above is the assertion of "efficient cause" which has two parts 1) nothing can cause itself and 2) there must be a best way to create anything and that way must be the same for everything.  All it is doing is adding extra assertions onto an original argument in order that in the mind of Aquinas the argument cannot now be used to logic up a generic god, but to specifically demand the christian god is the only answer.

The problem is still that the premises are assumed and that a number of them are mutually exclusive, either god has to have a creator or it is not part of the set Everything, therefore non-existent.

I'm afraid your understanding of the whole thing is not very good. Both arguments do not state that "there must have been a time before anything existed." 

But you have the sources available, so I'll drop the subject.

(December 2, 2018 at 7:00 pm)dr0n3 Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 3:57 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Expectation met!  


So, you're not going to name the fallacy you accused me of committing?  I thought so.  Loser.

The sheer level of immaturity that's on display is appalling, I'll put you anywhere between 12 to 16 years old.

As for the fallacy you've committed, you're more than welcome to visit this link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

I never claimed that your conclusion was wrong, so, no, I didn't commit what is commonly referred to as the fallacy fallacy.  So all that you've succeeded in demonstrating is that you have reading comprehension issues.  Now that your error has been cleared up and my original contention cleared of the bogus charge that it was fallacious, are you actually going to attempt to defuse the fallacy pointed out, or are you going to carry on in the moronic vein that you have been doing so far?

Oh, and for what it matters, yes, I am 12. I just had a birthday last month!