First order logic, set theory and God

[Angrboda]

Indirectly, yes. However, I'm of the opinion that causality needs to be appreciated in its totality - in other words, it's not the water that directly caused the ice to form but rather the sum of all phenomenon (nucleation, crystal growth, biochemical processes, and whatnot) + the water that has brought the necessary and suffi­cient conditions to the formation of ice.

WOW !!!    

Biochemical processes and whatnot - Will I find that when i do a google search on the formation of ice ?

The answer i was looking for was a loss of potential energy. The molecules slow down. As they do, they form hexagonal patterns and move a little further apart.
But what caused the molecules to slow down ? The water itself didn't cause the molecules to slow down. The environment itself got colder.
The environment changed. The loss of energy in the environment was the cause. That loss of energy affected the water, causing the molecules to slow down.

I could make a puppet show and put it on youtube if it would helpful.

I'll simply point out for completeness that according to Thomists, material causes are causes as well, and in this case, the water would qualify. I don't know that the poster is a Thomist (or similarly associated person), but it's best to rule it out first.

[DeistPaladin]

That’s a nice definition of faith dp, completely wrong but revealing.

Revealing of my utter contempt for religion? I've never made a secret of that.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Well it's hard to contribute to a thread when all the op does is bullshit, lie and denigrate others who have previously made worthwhile contributions.

[DeistPaladin]

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.

Well it's hard to contribute to a thread when all the op does is bullshit, lie and denigrate others who have previously made worthwhile contributions.

That's the modus operandi of the Pompous Apologist, a particular breed that I've identified here. 

The Pompous Apologist knows well that there is no evidence for his/her claims and uses a haughty, snippy or belittling attitude to try to compensate or appear intelligent. They like to engage in a lot of junk philosophy, apparently fantasizing that they are an esteemed professor speaking down to a group of atheist students. Knowing a good offense is the best defense, they will look for the weakest link in their opponent's arguments and harp on it endlessly, trying to poison the well. 

The way to handle the Pompous Apologist is to keep reminding them that they have the burden of proof and hold their feet to the fire.

[Neo-Scholastic]

<bump>

[Angrboda]

Well look what the cat dragged in.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

That's the issue with you Mathilda, that attempt of reducing the very nature of reality to God's existence is baseless and uncalled for. God's existence is merely a component of reality, yet your whole reasoning was an attempt at positioning God's existence as the sole basis of what reality essentially is.

Why would I be reducing the very nature of reality to your god's existence when I know that your god does not exist?

You are the one arguing for a first cause with that first cause being your imaginary, undefinable being. That defines reality. You are the one saying that magic is involved. You don't call it magic of course but that's exactly what it must be. Some form of power that is undefinable and unexplainable and impossible. Ergo magic.

There is no god. Your logic means nothing. Garbage in garbage out.

Hatcher's proof was solely established as to provide a minimalist notion of God's existence, and I stress on the word "minimalist". That's it.

Hatcher's so-called proof is meaningless twaddle.

You, on the other hand, went off into multiple tangents by extrapolating the proof to other areas (thermodynamics, continuum/discreteness and whatnot) that were completely divorced from the matter at hand. 

Do you know what extrapolating means? Because it doesn't mean what you seem to be saying it means. I was not extrapolating your so called proof. I am saying that your argument from logic is inadequate because there is so much that is relevant that it is missing out on.

You ridiculed me for saying that you are not scientifically literate. Yet if you were, you'd know that any scientific hypothesis must attempt to fit into what we already know. We know that the laws of thermodynamics exist and is the basis for the complexity we see in the universe, yet you completely ignore them, instead focusing on discrete logic to argue the existence of something that you cannot even define.

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?

Causality, for the most part, is best defined in terms of dependence. That is, "the formation of ice is causally dependent upon the onset of water crystallization" is to say that "if the onset of water crystallization had not occurred, then the formation of ice would not have occurred." The effect is always dependent on the cause. From an empirical standpoint, what is established the moment the very last molecule of H2O freezes, is the end of crystallization, ergo, the end of the effect of the causal chain. The whole point was that the transition from water to ice is discrete in nature since one can perceptually distinguish between the qualitative properties of water and that of ice, such that one doesn't overlap the other. It's that specific point in time, at which water ceases to be water and gradually takes in ice-like properties. Time is continuous but causality is discrete, and since both are intimately related to each other in the observable world, then one is bound to not make the difference between them. Such is your case, I'm afraid.

So in other words you have no idea what it is. Like the concept of a god, the way you use the concept of causality is equally nebulous and badly defined.

[brewer]

Well it's hard to contribute to a thread when all the op does is bullshit, lie and denigrate others who have previously made worthwhile contributions.

That's the modus operandi of the Pompous Apologist, a particular breed that I've identified here. 

The Pompous Apologist knows well that there is no evidence for his/her claims and uses a haughty, snippy or belittling attitude to try to compensate or appear intelligent. They like to engage in a lot of junk philosophy, apparently fantasizing that they are an esteemed professor speaking down to a group of atheist students. Knowing a good offense is the best defense, they will look for the weakest link in their opponent's arguments and harp on it endlessly, trying to poison the well. 

The way to handle the Pompous Apologist is to keep reminding them that they have the burden of proof and hold their feet to the fire.

And I'm still waiting for a god to show up.

[Angrboda]

Meh. I've grown quickly bored with this clown when all he knows how to do is insult and lie. Not worth my time, but I may still occasionally indulge in poking the bear.

[dr0n3]

I'll ask you to kindly toss that vague nonsense in the trash can - as you may have noticed, what one considers to be an extraordinary evidence may be interpreted as a perfectly ordinary and acceptable evidence by another.

I won't be tossing anything aside for your benefit. Instead, I'll remind you that you have, at best, philosophical arguments to prove the extraordinary claim that there is a god, that this One True God is Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet. 

The caliber of evidence needed to meet that burden would be something along the lines of miracles performed under peer review, magical artifacts that can be examined by science or supernatural beings testifying before a live audience. You haven't done this. You can't do this. If religions had such evidence, they would not require faith. 

Faith, of course, is believing impossible nonsense with no evidence and defending these beliefs against all evidence. 

You have failed to meet your burden of proof. Take your junk philosophy and verbal snake oil to someplace where it will matter, to wavering Muslims of weak faith that need some reassurance they haven't been conned by religion.

Along with that nonsensical vague statement of yours, I will also ask you to dispose of those red herrings in the trash can. As stated in the OP, you were asked to provide a well-thought out counterargument to hatcher's proof and point out any inconsistencies therein, which, by the nature of your post, you've miserably failed to do so. Without that, all your self aggrandizing drivel is just that, meaningless hogwash. If you're not satisfied with the evidence, you can either leave or engage in a meaningful and fruitful dialogue. As for the caliber of evidence you require, you won't have it - and if that's an issue for you, well you can always shove your right hand where the sun doesn't shine and find your god up there.

Indirectly, yes. However, I'm of the opinion that causality needs to be appreciated in its totality - in other words, it's not the water that directly caused the ice to form but rather the sum of all phenomenon (nucleation, crystal growth, biochemical processes, and whatnot) + the water that has brought the necessary and suffi­cient conditions to the formation of ice.

WOW !!!    

Biochemical processes and whatnot - Will I find that when i do a google search on the formation of ice ?

The answer i was looking for was a loss of potential energy. The molecules slow down. As they do, they form hexagonal patterns and move a little further apart.
But what caused the molecules to slow down ? The water itself didn't cause the molecules to slow down. The environment itself got colder.
The environment changed. The loss of energy in the environment was the cause. That loss of energy affected the water, causing the molecules to slow down.

I could make a puppet show and put it on youtube if it would helpful.

So essentially, all you did was provide a more detailed explanation of how ice is formed, all the while concurring with the core of my argument.

Your input is much appreciated.

Why would I be reducing the very nature of reality to your god's existence when I know that your god does not exist?

You are the one arguing for a first cause with that first cause being your imaginary, undefinable being. That defines reality. You are the one saying that magic is involved. You don't call it magic of course but that's exactly what it must be. Some form of power that is undefinable and unexplainable and impossible. Ergo magic.

There is no god. Your logic means nothing. Garbage in garbage out.

I'm pretty sure you don't need to believe in a god to understand that you've been grasping at straws. The mistake you've been doing the whole time and keep on doing until now, is the vain attempt at distorting my argument and position it in a way that "the nature of reality" somehow equates to "God's existence", and on that basis going off by arguing that reality was more than simply establishing God's existence.


"Your imaginary, undefinable that defines reality".

That bit of yours, is precisely what I'm talking about. Classical example of a straw man.

Hatcher's so-called proof is meaningless twaddle.

Yes, for someone who's bereft of philosophical and metaphysical knowledge - it's somewhat understandable to consider it as "meaningless twaddle".

However, I do sympathize with your situation and I wholeheartedly believe that there is nothing more rewarding than one who goes out of their way to make
a difference in someone's life.

I present to you -  Logic For Dummies

Do you know what extrapolating means? Because it doesn't mean what you seem to be saying it means. I was not extrapolating your so called proof. I am saying that your argument from logic is inadequate because there is so much that is relevant that it is missing out on.

Extrapolating wasn't the proper term, indeed. I'll take it back.

Either way, it doesn't excuse you from intentionally directing the argument from the initial topic to other irrelevant topics such as laws of thermodynamics, continuum/discreteness,ect..., which you have probably noticed by now, are outside the scope of Hatcher's proof. 

We know that the laws of thermodynamics exist and is the basis for the complexity we see in the universe, yet you completely ignore them

I ignored them because Hatcher's proof wasn't trying to establish the universe's complexity. It was trying to establish the origin of the universe. Not the complexity. The origin.


Let me repeat that for you - The proof wasn't attempting to establish the complexity, but rather the ORIGIN of the universe.

Do you understand or do I need to repeat myself one more time ? I hope not.

So in other words you have no idea what it is. Like the concept of a god, the way you use the concept of causality is equally nebulous and badly defined

.
Yes, that is correct.

I have absolutely no idea what causality is - and as a matter of fact, the audience and I, are desperately waiting to be blessed with your enlightened knowledge.

Meh.  I've grown quickly bored with this clown when all he knows how to do is insult and lie.  Not worth my time, but I may still occasionally indulge in poking the bear.

I admire that tenacity of making yourself relevant again after being chucked out. However, I despise more than anything, that hypocrisy you seem to display so shamelessly.

I'll let the audience decide on that one. Hypocrite.

No, I wouldn't have.  The existence of a fallacy indicates that your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.  That's how logic works, dumbass.  I could have pointed out other errors, but there was no need to do so having established the one.  A point that apparently sailed over your head.

Are you really this stupid?