(April 9, 2013 at 9:13 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: @fr0d0

(Today 14:20)Texas Sailor Wrote:
What material?

"Science 101 is down the hall.

Materialism isn't the subject here. You're transposing a modern materialist world view onto a non materialist one."

Don't change the subject home slice

I'm applying logic, combined with a modern understanding of scientific knowledge to a fairy tale. You can call it whatever you want, and I can point out your excuses for avoiding the objection every time, but until you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, I'd recommend that you just continue feeding Wooters kudos. Your responses are distractions to others that wish to gain understanding and actually display the intellectual capacity to achieve some.

Hey TeX

I didn't avoid the question. I hit it squarely out of the park. You dismiss it without entertaining it. I assume because the concept is unknown to you. Wouldn't it be better to question it rather than dismiss it out of hand?

You're applying logic strangled with a modernist material view, yeah. Try addressing the subject and you might see the actual logic of what it's saying.

Burying your head in the sand may be your atheism style. If so, please carry on.

Quote:You're applying logic strangled with a modernist material view, yeah.

It must be nice to win all your arguments in your head by framing every single one of your arguments specifically so that they are unfalsifiable, but that's not how grownups conduct rational discourse.

Quote:You're applying logic strangled with a modernist material view, yeah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0FXPqYpt0g

I dunno why I just posted that

(April 10, 2013 at 3:14 am)Ryantology Wrote: but that's not how grownups conduct rational discourse.

Haha! Well you shot yourself in the foot there.

If you come across any grown ups be sure to point them here so I can carry on discussing it k

(April 10, 2013 at 2:29 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 9, 2013 at 9:13 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: @fr0d0

(Today 14:20)Texas Sailor Wrote:
What material?

"Science 101 is down the hall.

Materialism isn't the subject here. You're transposing a modern materialist world view onto a non materialist one."

Don't change the subject home slice

I'm applying logic, combined with a modern understanding of scientific knowledge to a fairy tale. You can call it whatever you want, and I can point out your excuses for avoiding the objection every time, but until you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, I'd recommend that you just continue feeding Wooters kudos. Your responses are distractions to others that wish to gain understanding and actually display the intellectual capacity to achieve some.

Hey TeX

I didn't avoid the question. I hit it squarely out of the park. You dismiss it without entertaining it. I assume because the concept is unknown to you. Wouldn't it be better to question it rather than dismiss it out of hand?

You're applying logic strangled with a modernist material view, yeah. Try addressing the subject and you might see the actual logic of what it's saying.

Burying your head in the sand may be your atheism style. If so, please carry on.

The whole point is God's ability to create (INSERT NOUS) is contingent on the existence of something upon which to exercise HIS causal energies. This does not imply that God is a contingent being in the sense that HIS being is contingent on something other than Himself. You could even say that God isn't a contingent being but his powers inherently ARE and must be in order for any rational mind to continue entertaining Him if you so choose. You disagree? God is subject to logical restrictions just like any and everything else (material or immaterial), If it can be understood rationally this must be true. If it is an irrational assertion, it is illogical and should be dismissed as such. God can't be God and not-God at the same time (you disagree?), God can't make a weight so big that he himself couldn't lift it, and guess what dude? God can't be both material and immaterial at the same time! So, answer the question. The fact that all of these things must be true in order to maintain the logic we apply to literally EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S TRUE... What is God's power contingent upon? Is it not contingent on something? If you say no, then I'm curious as to how you make sense of this.

My Guess is that one of these will be how you choose to continue...


a) Deflect the question, fillubustering, straw-man arguments, or another possible Red Herring.

b) Admit that belief in God is completely irrational at least as far as this, and you have no logical reason to believe in him, but are totally cool with supporting it's "possibility" inspite it's irrationality and you GLADLY accept the implications such a statement makes on your intelligence in the name of faith.



Hmm...Which one will it be.

First, my general response: God, the Universe and Everything. I keep struggling to find nomenclature that overcomes the individual interpretations of what constitutes ‘everything’. By definition, the universe is everything, but most people think of the universe is synonymous with the physical universe. It has become even more muddied now that people talk of a ‘multi-verse’. So I’m stuck trying to find a term that denotes the sum total of reality beyond just the physical universe. The ancients used ‘the All’ or ‘the One’. Those seem to carry some baggage too. Eventually, I settled on ‘totality’, for better or worse. I’m willing to take suggestions.

I contend that physical reality, as in ‘the world governed by the laws of physics’, is a subset of a larger more comprehensive reality. That’s a bit of a problem since the dogma around here is that the physical universe is already the sum total of the universe and that everything reduces to physics. Obviously, I do not share that opinion, because it is clear to me, philosophically, the models of physics that approximate reality rest on ironclad mathematical and logical laws that produce exact, not approximate results.

For example, on the side of FORM, the validity of physical law F=ma (force = mass x acceleration) is based on ideal conditions. But in reality, there are no ideal conditions, so if you perform the calculation you get an approximation. Moreover, you can obtain results using formulas, like Newtonian physics, that have no actual relationship to what’s actually going on inside the system they describe. In contrast to this, mathematical and logical equations are exactly true for all particular cases. The formula x + x + x = 3x yields the same result every time. The logical form of “if a= b and if b=c then a=c” is a logically valid structure regardless of what a, b, and c are. The laws of physics produce results because these other non-physical types of laws are truth-preserving in every case.

On the side of SUBSTANCE, there is a theoretical limit to the divisibility of the physical universe, the Plank unit. In physics, you have a smallest possible unit of time, Plank time or tP. In theory, the physical universe could be exactly one Plank unit of space in all directions and endure for a period of exactly on Plank unit of time. We would be entirely clueless of this condition. We would experience the past as a current memory and the future as an anticipated future, when in fact there was only ever one instance of now. (Try putting Occam’s razor to that idea!) But that’s not how we live our lives, we assume that some inherent order holds all these multiple finite Plank units into a single whole.

Now, as physics as we currently understand it does not, indeed cannot, ascribe any reason for the logical form of the universe. Physics takes it for granted. This means that whatever holds reality together and keeps it from collapsing into complete absurdity is, by definition, non-physical. This doesn’t mean a radical revision of physics might not roll this binding principle into a new theory of everything. And that is what the physical reductionists on AF resist, the unity of theological concepts with scientific ones.

Sorry for the word wall, but it was necessary.

(April 9, 2013 at 9:13 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: …you cannot avoid the fact that change is a product of time, and time itself is contingent upon the very existence of this universe.

Yes, the existence of time, a concept of physics, depends on principles, either, taken for granted by physics or not currently figured into it.

(April 9, 2013 at 9:13 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: …If the bible posits that God created the universe...Which inherently gave time meaning and existence as time and the universe are one in the same…How is it that the God you defend existed in a state of change before change was possible?

That’s not my position. There are changeless constants, beyond the reach of physics, that support how changes occur in time. But these constants are not part of time.

(April 9, 2013 at 9:13 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: …If you take the God part out of it, it's merely seeking understanding for yet another phenomena that also has an explanation. You don't have to just keep jamming god into the equation where he obviously doesn't fit!

No because ‘god’ is the reason why the equation works without itself being part of the equation.

(April 10, 2013 at 8:31 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: The whole point is God's ability to create (INSERT NOUS) is contingent on the existence of something upon which to exercise HIS causal energies.

Actually, I agree with this to some extent, if you confine God's creative activity to top-down causation. I think He uses both top-down and bottom-up causation, being the ultimate basis for both substance and form. Thus He applies His creative energies to Himself to produce the physical universe within Himself.

(April 10, 2013 at 8:31 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: God is subject to logical restrictions just like any and everything else (material or immaterial)

Almost. God is, in part, the internally self-consistent logical restriction to everything.

(April 10, 2013 at 8:31 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: God can't make a weight so big that he himself couldn't lift it, and guess what dude? God can't be both material and immaterial at the same time!

Why not? It depends on how you define what is material and immaterial. If the immovable object is the Form of Everything and the irresistible force is the enduring disposition to come into being by the Substance of Everthing, then the paradox is resolved.

Time for a nap!

---

(April 10, 2013 at 3:22 am)LastPoet Wrote: I dunno why I just posted that

Maybe because back then Madonna was just so HOT!

---

(April 10, 2013 at 3:14 am)Ryantology Wrote: ...but that's not how grownups conduct rational discourse.

You're one to talk about grown-up conduct.

In the beginning, man created god. He created god simply by speaking him into existence. And when he saw that the people would do whatever he asked them to do on god's behalf, he saw that it was good.

Since then, man has used god to wage war, commit genocide, rape and oppresss the women of conquered foe, enslave other human beings (especially from other races), and collect obscene amounts of tax free money.

I would say "reducing to physics" means we might be able to understand it. If you define the universe by "how" the interactions take place, I would agree, it falls woefully short. But it does seem that we are a hierarchy of structure. And what is the next level becomes the question.

F=MA, really is not based in "ideal conditions". It is based on a set of conditions that we can work with. We limit the number of complexities to be able to make some predictions. But you have a point in that our understanding falls short at lower and higher masses. That doesn't mean there is magic.

I take issue with the physics "'Krauss''' when he implies that if we can't make predictions, then pink elephants could appear. That is not true. It is more that our formulas are very incomplete and we can't predict the next event. But pink elephants are not coming out of black holes. Also his "zero" notion, well, that might hold true for a "poof there it is god", but that's it.

What is time? there is no time. As you stated, we call a regular set of conditional changes a "tick". But it does not exists.

I don't agree with your last stance. It is not that it is "not physical". It is that we don't know what it is yet. Finding the higgs means, at least, particle and energy interactions is a good start.

What is this "non-physical" part of the universe you speak of? I think it just means interactions that we just don't understand yet. Like one atom having the ability to process more than one bit of information at the same time. To a "hardon" group like us, it would be seen as "not physical" if information passed through you at the same time you were you. But in actuality, it is "physical".

[quote='archangle' pid='430010' dateline='1365607119'What is this "non-physical" part of the universe you speak of? I think it just means interactions that we just don't understand yet. [/quote]There are many unknowns waiting to be discovered within physics. I have no problem with that. My concerns revolve around those things not explicable within physics.

Non-physical means things not explicable within physics. My view of physics is this. Physics is an internally consistent scientific model of naturally occurring interactions between observable objects. Physics itself works because it depends the operation of objects not describable within its internally consistent scientific model. Suppose the so-called Theory of Everything was finally created. Does the TOE truly contain ‘everything?’ Personally, I do not think so. Physics presupposes the existence of things without which physics would not be possible. To me that means an inherent order to reality, one of mathematical certainties, sensible qualities and logical coherence.

That makes me a realist. I believe that universal attributes exist in and of themselves and are not just names attached to observed common features. In essence, common features are identifiable precisely because there are universal attributes capable of being recognized as common.

(April 10, 2013 at 8:31 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: God can't make a weight so big that he himself couldn't lift it, and guess what dude? God can't be both material and immaterial at the same time!

Already thoroughly refuted on this forum. Go check out your gaff:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-1813.html