(October 5, 2011 at 9:41 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Yeah, Heaven.

Uh.....huh. Yep....heaven.....


Wishful thinking, it knows no bounds.

Oh you guys hadn't heard? Statler here is one of the elect, practically a walking fucking saint..lol

Amazing a YEC talking about logic.

Show/Tell me the logic behind YEC.

Goddidit™
ergo God exists™

(October 5, 2011 at 9:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Interesting, why is there a limitation on the possible number of interactions? How could these interactions be anything but random?

In particle physics fundamental interactions or fundamental forces control how elementary particles interact with one another. The interactions of these elementary particles control the nature of matter and objects in the macroscopic universe.

The four fundamental non-contact forces are; electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravitation.

All interactions between elementary particles are governed by some combination of these forces. Without going too deep into the physics; these interactions take certain forms based on the relative strength of these forces and the particles involved. It follows from this that the number of possible outcomes of any given interaction must be necessarily limited. Additionally while predicting which specific particle might be involved in a reaction is difficult for several reasons the actual interactions are not random and can, in fact, be expressed mathematically as can the probability of any one particle being involved.

(October 5, 2011 at 9:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How do you know they will continue to be limited in the future? Just trying to be sure I understand your position.

I would hold that these fundamental forces are intrinsic properties of our reality. If these forces behaved differently we would simply not exist as we do. Additionally, there is no reason to suppose that such universal forces would or indeed could suddenly cease to function or change their behaviours.

I would suppose there is scholarly material on this subject which presents the idea much better than I have; unfortunately it is not something I have had the time to study.

(October 5, 2011 at 9:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I agree with this, but isn’t the real issue why there is any uniformity at all in nature? Rather than why is there some degree of non-uniformity?

Indeed, the point was to highlight that induction as a logical tool would still be useful without 100% uniformity in nature. I raised this because you disagreed with my proposition that induction could still be used in such circumstances.

(October 5, 2011 at 9:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well because nobody can figure out where this uniformity comes from. Why don’t objects just pop in and out of existence? Why does a stone remain a stone? We can detail natural laws describing these interactions and properties but we really can’t explain why these interactions happen and properties are present. Philosophers like Hume recognized this problem, generalizations, cause/effect relationships, and essences do not make any sense in a purely chance unguided universe.

Okay, I think given the current understanding of Particle Physics, Big Bang Cosmology, General Relativity and numerous other extremely well evidenced theories we can suppose excellent grounds for this uniformity to exist. Some of which I have already tried to explain.

Obviously I appreciate the philosophical challenge of induction in the justification of the scientific method. However, what you seem to be trying to do is to project this too far. I don’t need to be able to tell you why the fundamental forces are there, sufficient that they are there. Your argument seems to be of the form;

As of yet, we cannot explain why some property of the universe exists as it does therefore God must exist to make it that way?

Correct me if I’m wrong there. As for why don’t objects just pop into and out of existence etc ... I assume you were just using that as rhetoric. I’m sure you don’t need me to explain that to you or point out that you yourself allow for things to be conjured into existence as long as you call it an axiomatic presupposition?

(October 5, 2011 at 9:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well maybe you should…no?

Please don’t preach to me Statler. I appreciate your right to you own views and try to maintain a civilised and rational level of discussion with you and I don’t tell you that you should just accept my views, in return please do the same.

(October 5, 2011 at 9:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: But so far, as best I can tell all of your justifications sneak the principle of induction in through the back door as a premise. You assume that the interactions at the microscopic level will remain a good explanation into the future because they have remained one in the past. This of course banks off of the assumption that the future will resemble the past. If I am not following your position please correct me, but that is what I am seeing.

I already said that ultimately the Uniformity in Nature is presupposed as constant in a naturalistic universe. I have then proceeded to demonstrate arguments which rationalise, justify and support this a posterior and therefore justify the use of the principle of induction as a method of gaining probabilistic knowledge.

I hope I have clarified my views above; that I hold that the fundamental interactive forces are constant and universal, that I see no valid reason, logical or evidential to believe that these forces would or could change and further I see no mechanism by which a universal constant might fluctuate.

(October 5, 2011 at 9:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The fact that my axiomatic assumptions provide a framework that solves the problem of induction actually makes them the opposite of dubious.

The result of your assumptions in this instance is no way an indication of their quality. I could just as easily say that I accept that reality is inherently uniform as an axiomatic assumption. This solves the problem of induction and is therefore a good assumption. When you make large assumptions that an entire belief system is correct it’s easy to craft it to solve any problem you want.

(October 5, 2011 at 9:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Harvest which involves seasonal changes in angle of sun to the earth, photosynthesis, respiration, the second law of thermodynamics, precipitation, constant gravitational forces, and moderated atmospheric pressures to just name a few necessary conditions could happen without uniformity in nature? I beg to differ. The things listed in the verse, although certainly not exhaustive, definitely point to God’s consistent upholding of His creation.

Are you suggesting then that God is in fact not omnipotent? That he could not cause these things without the Universe already providing for them? Hypothetically, is it not possible that God only maintains the bubble of space-time around our planet or solar system as uniform? That would satisfy your passage, no?

The point is, the passage you provided does nothing to justify a Universal uniformity of nature, unless you can provide this justification for your presupposition it becomes arbitrary.

(October 5, 2011 at 9:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh, seems you have been brushing up on Martin’s TANG. Well as Frame pointed out when he refuted Martin, miracles are by definition an extremely rare violation of the uniformity of nature or act of God. So a person can still make predictions without worrying about God suddenly breaking the rules (something He usually gives warning about doing before He does it, and something He is no longer actively doing on a great scale like in Biblical times). God can also use natural means to achieve a miraculous end such as the strong wind found in Exodus 14.

Okay. So you accept that miracles do in fact cause a problem for your argument? However, they’re quite rare and are sometimes achieved with natural means so you don’t have to worry too much.
I think your side-stepping the logical conclusion that whether you think he may or not God could alter how the universe works however I’d rather discuss something more substantive at the moment.

Regards

Sam

(October 6, 2011 at 8:29 am)frankiej Wrote: Heaven will suck... You will have to carry on worshipping some unstable nut job, while we will be in hell absolutely wasted and fucking everything that moves.

If we are going to be talking about Biblical concepts like Heaven and Hell, let’s stick to actual biblical descriptions of them shall we? Hell does not sound nearly as fun as you described it here. Gnashing of teeth.

(October 6, 2011 at 8:52 am)5thHorseman Wrote: Amazing a YEC talking about logic.

Show/Tell me the logic behind YEC.

You guys always do this and it cracks me up. You use the word logic to mean something completely different than what it actually means. You are using it to mean something you believe to be true and anyone who does not hold that view is not using logic. Creationists hold to ultimate standards that are axiomatic. They then reason from these standards deductively to other conclusions. That is logical whether you agree with their conclusions or not.

(October 6, 2011 at 10:56 am)Sam Wrote: In particle physics fundamental interactions or fundamental forces control how elementary particles interact with one another. The interactions of these elementary particles control the nature of matter and objects in the macroscopic universe.

I am with you so far….

Quote: The four fundamental non-contact forces are; electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravitation.

Still with you…



Still with you…

Quote: I would hold that these fundamental forces are intrinsic properties of our reality. If these forces behaved differently we would simply not exist as we do. Additionally, there is no reason to suppose that such universal forces would or indeed could suddenly cease to function or change their behaviours.

Well when you say, “we wouldn’t exist if they did change” you are essentially proving an irrelevant hypothesis. I agree with you, but that does not tell us anything about how you know they will continue into the future. Wouldn’t you also agree that you have no reason to assume they will continue into the future? If a flipped coin lands on heads three times in a row that does not give us anymore confidence it will land on heads rather than tails after the next flip right? However, if I had an infallible source telling me the coin will land on heads until the end of the age I have complete confidence in assuming this to be true right?

Quote: Indeed, the point was to highlight that induction as a logical tool would still be useful without 100% uniformity in nature. I raised this because you disagreed with my proposition that induction could still be used in such circumstances.

Oh I didn’t mean to say that if I did, I agree with your point here.

Quote: Okay, I think given the current understanding of Particle Physics, Big Bang Cosmology, General Relativity and numerous other extremely well evidenced theories we can suppose excellent grounds for this uniformity to exist. Some of which I have already tried to explain.

Sure we have excellent grounds for this uniformity to be present in the past after we have observed it, but to say we have excellent grounds to assume it will continue in the future is begging the question because it assumes past observed events will resemble future observed events.

Quote: Obviously I appreciate the philosophical challenge of induction in the justification of the scientific method. However, what you seem to be trying to do is to project this too far. I don’t need to be able to tell you why the fundamental forces are there, sufficient that they are there. Your argument seems to be of the form;

As of yet, we cannot explain why some property of the universe exists as it does therefore God must exist to make it that way?

I do not believe that is the form of the argument at all. I would say it is more like…
1. Christian believes A to be true; Christian has a reason to believe A to be true.
2. Secularist believes A to be true, secularist has no valid reason to believe A is true but asserts that the Christian’s valid reason is false.

Quote: Correct me if I’m wrong there. As for why don’t objects just pop into and out of existence etc ... I assume you were just using that as rhetoric. I’m sure you don’t need me to explain that to you or point out that you yourself allow for things to be conjured into existence as long as you call it an axiomatic presupposition?

Well it was not so much really rhetoric, if you assume the principle of induction to be valid then sure we don’t have to worry about my desk turning into a couch tomorrow morning. If I have no basis for induction (which the secularist has not provided one to date) then I have no proof that my desk will not morph into a couch tomorrow morning. I was wondering though when you were describing forces above, what are forces? Are they material? Immaterial? Abstract?
Well you too believe that matter just popped into existence at one point in time, you just believe it happened naturalistically, I believe it happen super-naturalistically.

Quote: Please don’t preach to me Statler. I appreciate your right to you own views and try to maintain a civilised and rational level of discussion with you and I don’t tell you that you should just accept my views, in return please do the same.

I would say one of the goals of a debate or discussion is to possibly convince the other person of your position right? So it was not preaching at all, but merely just a question.

Quote: I already said that ultimately the Uniformity in Nature is presupposed as constant in a naturalistic universe. I have then proceeded to demonstrate arguments which rationalise, justify and support this a posterior and therefore justify the use of the principle of induction as a method of gaining probabilistic knowledge.

However, in your justifications you have subtly assumed induction to be true because they all appeal to it in some form or another, so this is not really a justification right?

Quote: The result of your assumptions in this instance is no way an indication of their quality. I could just as easily say that I accept that reality is inherently uniform as an axiomatic assumption. This solves the problem of induction and is therefore a good assumption. When you make large assumptions that an entire belief system is correct it’s easy to craft it to solve any problem you want.

Well yes you could certainly do this, and I would even argue that you have. However, in logical reasoning the farther back and fewer in number your axiomatic assumptions are the better, so mine would be one more level back than yours. You would have to hold to around a half a dozen, one axiomatic assumption for each of the preconditions of knowledge, I have to hold to one, the triune God of scripture exists and everything else falls into place.

Quote:Are you suggesting then that God is in fact not omnipotent? That he could not cause these things without the Universe already providing for them? Hypothetically, is it not possible that God only maintains the bubble of space-time around our planet or solar system as uniform? That would satisfy your passage, no?

Well just because God chooses to do something a particular way it does not follow that He is somehow only limited to doing it that way. I do not know the particulars of how He governs His creation consistently and predictably because He did not reveal the details to us, I just know that He does do it and will do it until the end of the age.

Quote: The point is, the passage you provided does nothing to justify a Universal uniformity of nature, unless you can provide this justification for your presupposition it becomes arbitrary.

Not following you on this one. Some of the things in the verse are limited to earth (Harvest); some are indeed universal, such as heat and cold.

Quote: Okay. So you accept that miracles do in fact cause a problem for your argument? However, they’re quite rare and are sometimes achieved with natural means so you don’t have to worry too much.

Well I wouldn’t say they cause a problem, I think they just make induction what it is, highly probable but not completely certain.

Quote: I think your side-stepping the logical conclusion that whether you think he may or not God could alter how the universe works however I’d rather discuss something more substantive at the moment.

Sure He could, but He said He wouldn’t so it’s not a big issue. I am so glad you are back in these discussions, this sort of dialogue is always fun I think.

(August 18, 2011 at 7:20 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's the ultimate fingers in the ears defense. The WMD of disagreements. Seems these guys are banking on the success of this tactic in the playgrounds of their youth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposit...pologetics

Have you got an actual argument against the method other than the ad hominem you cite here?

(October 6, 2011 at 7:23 pm)objectivitees Wrote: Have you got an actual argument against the method other than the ad hominem you cite here?

Good luck getting anything out of him :-)

(August 19, 2011 at 4:08 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Sorry Stat, it's not rational whatsoever. Nothing stops Muslims from using the same argument that intelligible thought is impossible without presupposing Allah is the source of all existence. This presupposition argument reeks of desperation and special pleading for the Christian God. I could come up with an infinite different definitions of god that would all be valid under presupposition apologetics by presupposing my definition to be true. It boils down to the fact that the bible cannot be proven to be true, so it must be assumed to be true to prove the Christian point of view.

Actually faith, you cannot come up with an infinite number of definitions for God that would work within this particular form of apologetics.
Any time a definition of God is used that differs from the biblical (or what i prefer to call the ontological definition) description of God, it can be demonstrated that the definition itself is self contradictory. Allah cannot be used (to borrow your example) because Allah is by definition both Good and Evil. (go ahead and ask a devout Muslim) If God is both good and evil, then one must give up all rationality in their argument, a problem not encountered in the presuppositional (and rational) defense of the God of the Bible. It is interesting to note however, Muslims were first to utilize this kind of reasoning in defense of faith with respect to the "existence" of God, with the "Kalaam" cosmological argument, but never applied the same kind of rigorous logic to their own definition of God.

Not to mention... how would you know when you reached an "infinite" number of definitions?

(October 6, 2011 at 8:29 am)frankiej Wrote: Heaven will suck... You will have to carry on worshipping some unstable nut job, while we will be in hell absolutely wasted and fucking everything that moves.

We shouldn't tease Statler like that. He might think you're being serious.

There's no Heaven or Hell, Statler. The evidence is what we know about the human brain.

Memory is stored and accessed in the brain. These memories can be lost if the brain is ever damaged by illness, injury or the wrong use of pharmaceuticals. What makes you even hope that when you die and the brain is destroyed completely that these memories will travel with your ghost to this other place? And why can't those suffering from Alzheimer's access these indestructible memories located in the spirit?

Sorry to rain on your parade, Christians, but we're been to the moon and back and planes travel through the clouds regularly. We haven't found an angel colonies yet. There just aint nothing "up there" but wisps of condensation, an occasional flock of birds and depending on where you stand, a few Russian astronauts.