Who Made God?

The ultimate question?

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Who Made God?

#521  Postby Thommo » Aug 12, 2017 12:55 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:
So you're saying that if an atheist ate a baby, or had eaten a baby then it would remain true that only cats eat their own offspring.
You might want to rework that example.

The statement "only cats eat their own"is based on what we have observed to be true. That doesn't mean it is absolutely true...only provisionally true. That's how science works. Everything is tentative because we don't have all the information yet.


If you're basing that statement on science, then it's just plain wrong and you might want to rework your example.

To be honest, it's not really clear what you think you're doing, because it's not logic, it's not semantics and it's not anything else you might expect people to be familiar with.

From what you've said so far, you could argue that:-

- Only Christians are complete morons, and
- Christians are not complete morons

Are compatible statements, which is basically the definition of nonsense.

PS: A less nonsensical, deliberately provocative and counterfactual way of saying the only point that might drop out of this example is "sometimes people believe things because they haven't seen disconfirming evidence, but turn out to be wrong".
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21412

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Own goal Re: Who Made God?

#522  Postby Greyman » Aug 12, 2017 1:05 pm

Wortfish wrote:The statement "only cats eat their own"is based on what we have observed to be true. That doesn't mean it is absolutely true...only provisionally true. That's how science works. Everything is tentative because we don't have all the information yet.
Congratulations!

Now apply this to the first premises of Aquinas and Kalam and see the arguments fall flat. Since such statements as "every caused thing needs a cause" and "everything is moved by a moving mover" are provisional, there doesn't need to be a special exemption when they are found problematic. They could just be found to be wrong.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 412
Age: 49

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#523  Postby Wortfish » Aug 12, 2017 2:09 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
To be analogous, it would have to be thus:
1. All cats eat their own offspring.
2. Cats can't survive if they all eat their offspring.
C. Therefore there must be a non-offspring eating cat.
C2. This cat is Bastet.

Actually, cats can survive if they eat their offspring, just not all of them. I duly note that you evaded the analogy completed.

Again, your example is in no way analogous to the Cosmological argument.

It isn't analogous to the cosmological argument. Rather, it shows that we don't have to regard a statement as absolutely and always true just because it is what we presently know to be true.I think Hume had something to say on this regarding the problem of induction and the uniformity of nature. For example, just because we have only seen white swans doesn't mean that black swans don't exist. Similarly, we can't categorically claim that the laws of physics will always hold even if they have done so hitherto.

What a pathetic semantic point. The bolded bit means all moving things require a mover.

Not so. There is a difference between "Whatever" and "All". I think it is the same in Dutch for "wat dan ook" and "alle". I admit I used the word "all", but Aquinas was more cautious and careful. He merely stated that things that move have been moved by something else - that is what we know to be true in our present understanding of moving things. He does not claim that this was always the case or that will continue to be so. But he does state that, if we assume it to have been true for events in the past, it sets up the problem of an infinite regress of movers.

Transparent dodging horseshit, is transparent. You have not demonstrated that science has proved that everything that is in motion was caused to move by another mover. That is becauase you can't, because there's a lot we don't know about the universe.

Science cannot "prove" anything. Science can merely make observations. These observations indicate that everything in motion has been moved by something else.....up until a point in the distant past where a first mover is required. When Hubble noticed that the galaxies were moving away from each other, he realised that this means they were closer together in the past. Extrapolating, he realised that there must have been a point at which all space and matter arose from a singularity. Therefore, all the motion in the universe has its origins in the Big Bang, and the Big Bang must itself have been caused by an unmoved first mover.

Stop dishonestly cutting the context of my posts to make it seem as if I haven't, when I have, repeatedly.

You have failed to refute the argument of Aquinas despite your total resistance. You have been called out over gravity, though.

From his limited knowledge. Again you have not demonstrated this to tbe universally true.

Science can only demonstrate what we presently know to be true, not what we hope to know in the future.

I don't care. Both you and Aquinas need to demonstrate that everything that moves require a mover.
Asserting it based on your personal ignorance does nothing.

To try and explain this to you, imagine an object in space on a linear trajectory. You may claim that it has always been moving and was never moved. You may claim Newton's first law of motion supports this. But if it never was moved, and has always been moving, then that means it has travelled an infinite distance which is absurd if the size of the universe is finite.

This is in reference to your constant insistence on the false dichotomy that mass is a phenomenon, not a cause. The point is that it is both.

The uneven distribution of mass, due to the movement of objects, is the cause of mass attraction (i.e gravity).

Wortfish wrote: If an infinite regress is impossible, then a first mover becomes necessary.

Making another blind asssertion to prop up your initial blind assertion, still doesn't make it true.

See? Total resistance. If an infinite regress is impossible, then that means that the causal chain must be finite, which means it has a beginning, which means there is a first mover. How can you clam this is a blind assertion and not a logical inference?

If it takes action, ie moves, then according to the cosmological argument, it requires a mover.

If it is a first mover, then by definition, it does not require a mover. To avoid the problem of an infinite regress, there must be a first mover that is unlike all subsequent movers. Take a look for yourself at how and why a first mover is needed to generate a domino effect (0:20):

Still special pleading, no matter how you try to rephrase it.

No, it isn't. Watch the video above that shows that the movement of the dominos depends on a first mover that is not a domino.

Only if you insist on an argument that asserts ALL things that move, require a mover.

The argument is contingent upon this observation. You have tried to refute it with your failed claim about gravity.

Except that it does not as your argument is based on blind assertions and circular reasoning.

No. It is based on observation (that moving things are moved), refuting the impossible (the infinite regress), and proposing the necessary (the first mover). :)
Last edited by Wortfish on Aug 12, 2017 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 347

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Own goal Re: Who Made God?

#524  Postby Wortfish » Aug 12, 2017 2:14 pm

Greyman wrote:
Wortfish wrote:The statement "only cats eat their own"is based on what we have observed to be true. That doesn't mean it is absolutely true...only provisionally true. That's how science works. Everything is tentative because we don't have all the information yet.
Congratulations!

Now apply this to the first premises of Aquinas and Kalam and see the arguments fall flat. Since such statements as "every caused thing needs a cause" and "everything is moved by a moving mover" are provisional, there doesn't need to be a special exemption when they are found problematic. They could just be found to be wrong.


Well, yes, the fact is that the nature of the second mover/cause, which is moved/caused by an unmoved first mover/cause, does actually show that the observation couldn't have always held and so is not absolutely true.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 347

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#525  Postby Wortfish » Aug 12, 2017 2:22 pm

Thommo wrote:

From what you've said so far, you could argue that:-

- Only Christians are complete morons, and
- Christians are not complete morons

Are compatible statements, which is basically the definition of nonsense.


No. That is not a fair representation. This is how I framed it:

- Only atheists eat their own.
- All humans can eat their own.

The second statement leaves the possibility that someone, other than an atheist, could have eaten or will eat a baby.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 347

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#526  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 12, 2017 3:04 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
To be analogous, it would have to be thus:
1. All cats eat their own offspring.
2. Cats can't survive if they all eat their offspring.
C. Therefore there must be a non-offspring eating cat.
C2. This cat is Bastet.

Actually, cats can survive if they eat their offspring, just not all of them. I duly note that you evaded the analogy completed.

Besides the second sentence being gibberish, that you think that your peurile semantic point actually works in your favor, is yet more evidence of your disengenuous behaviour.
If anyone failed to adress the analogy it's you. Your pointless semantic quibble does nothing to refute it.

Wortfish wrote:
Again, your example is in no way analogous to the Cosmological argument.

It isn't analogous to the cosmological argument.

So you admit it has fuck all to do with it.

Wortfish wrote:
Rather, it shows that we don't have to regard a statement as absolutely and always true just because it is what we presently know to be true.

Except that it doesn't.
Fabricating two completely unrelated premises does nothing of the sort.
At best, you've just reaffirmed that you don't know how categorical statements work.
At worst you've just, again, refuted the cosmological argument.
If you admit that we don't have to regard a statement as absolutely and always true, then the first premise is false.

Wortfish wrote:
I think Hume had something to say on this regarding the problem of induction and the uniformity of nature. For example, just because we have only seen white swans doesn't mean that black swans don't exist. Similarly, we can't categorically claim that the laws of physics will always hold even if they have done so hitherto.

Meaning premise one of the cosmological argument is false. Do continue to demolish your own arguments.

Wortfish wrote:
What a pathetic semantic point. The bolded bit means all moving things require a mover.

Not so.

And yet another blind counterfactual assertion.
Whatsoever X, means all things that are X.
That's how the English language works.

Wortfish wrote: There is a difference between "Whatever" and "All".

Not in the context of that sentence.

Wortfish wrote: I think it is the same in Dutch for "wat dan ook" and "alle".

In Dutch the sentence would read: Wat ook maar beweegd wordt door ander bewogen.
Which means all moving things are moved by other movers.

Wortfish wrote: I admit I used the word "all", but Aquinas was more cautious and careful.

He wasn't. He was more Shakespearean than you.

Wortfish wrote: He merely stated that things that move have been moved by something else

False, he said that whatever moves has been moved by something else. Meaning all things that move.

Wortfish wrote: - that is what we know to be true in our present understanding of moving things.

Stop lying.
More-over this is refuted by your point about inductive reasoning.

Wortfish wrote: He does not claim that this was always the case or that will continue to be so.

Except that he does, but do continue to lie. It will only serve to demonstrate that you've no interest in an honest discussion.

Wortfish wrote: But he does state that, if we assume it to have been true for events in the past, it sets up the problem of an infinite regress of movers.

Except that you still haven't demonstrated this to be a problem.

Wortfish wrote:
Transparent dodging horseshit, is transparent. You have not demonstrated that science has proved that everything that is in motion was caused to move by another mover. That is because you can't, because there's a lot we don't know about the universe.

Science cannot "prove" anything.

Then you have no basis to assert that all things are moved by other movers.


Wortfish wrote: Science can merely make observations. These observations indicate that everything in motion has been moved by something else

Stop making shit up. You have not demonstrated this.

Wortfish wrote:.....up until a point in the distant past where a first mover is required.

This is an even bigger lie than first part of this sentence.

Wortfish wrote: When Hubble noticed that the galaxies were moving away from each other, he realised that this means they were closer together in the past.

At some point.


Wortfish wrote: Extrapolating, he realised that there must have been a point at which all space and matter arose from a singularity. Therefore, all the motion in the universe has its origins in the Big Bang, and the Big Bang must itself have been caused by an unmoved first mover.

False. That is true for our local representation of the universe. Not the entire universe as a whole.

Wortfish wrote:
Stop dishonestly cutting the context of my posts to make it seem as if I haven't, when I have, repeatedly.

You have failed to refute the argument of Aquinas despite your total resistance.

Oh look, more pathetic lies.

Wortfish wrote: You have been called out over gravity, though.

Again a lie, more-over one that you've been repeatedly corrected on.

Wortfish wrote:
From his limited knowledge. Again you have not demonstrated this to tbe universally true.

Science can only demonstrate what we presently know to be true, not what we hope to know in the future.

Science has not demonstrated it in either sense of the word.

Wortfish wrote:
I don't care. Both you and Aquinas need to demonstrate that everything that moves require a mover.
Asserting it based on your personal ignorance does nothing.

To try and explain this to you,

You can stuff the patronising bullshit Wortfish.

Wortfish wrote:
imagine an object in space on a linear trajectory. You may claim that it has always been moving and was never moved.

I've done no such thing. Stop making shit up in a desperate attempt to burn straw-men.

Wortfish wrote:You may claim Newton's first law of motion supports this. But if it never was moved, and has always been moving, then that means it has travelled an infinite distance which is absurd if the size of the universe is finite.

Except we don't know whether our universe if finite or infinite.

Wortfish wrote:
This is in reference to your constant insistence on the false dichotomy that mass is a phenomenon, not a cause. The point is that it is both.

The uneven distribution of mass, due to the movement of objects, is the cause of mass attraction (i.e gravity).

Once again you're offering a description, that fails to adress the actual point being made.

Wortfish wrote:
Wortfish wrote: If an infinite regress is impossible, then a first mover becomes necessary.

Making another blind asssertion to prop up your initial blind assertion, still doesn't make it true.

See? Total resistance.

Yea, I don't blindly accept whatever anyone asserts, especially when I know that assertion to bases on faulty reasoning and made up shit. How dare I?
The only one refusing to engage in an honest discussion is you Wortfish. You're the one who keeps ignoring or dismissing out of hand multiple rebuttals. The one who keeps mindlessly regurgitating points that have already been refuted several times.

Wortfish wrote: If an infinite regress is impossible, then that means that the causal chain must be finite, which means it has a beginning, which means there is a first mover. How can you clam this is a blind assertion and not a logical inference?

Because that refers to your initial claim that infinite regress is impossible/absurd. That's the blind assertion that makes the rest of your argument invalid.

Wortfish wrote:
If it takes action, ie moves, then according to the cosmological argument, it requires a mover.

If it is a first mover, then by definition, it does not require a mover.

And this is still a classical example of circular reasoning, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Wortfish wrote: To avoid the problem of an infinite regress

Again, you haven't demonstrated this to be a problem in the first place.

Wortfish wrote: there must be a first mover that is unlike all subsequent movers. Take a look for yourself at how and why a first mover is needed to generate a domino effect (0:20):

I don't have to.
According to premise 1 of the cosmological argument, that person tipping the domino also was moved by something else and that chain goes on ad infinitum.

Wortfish wrote:
Still special pleading, no matter how you try to rephrase it.

No, it isn't.

Sticking your fingers in your ears won't change the facts Wortfish.

Wortfish wrote: Watch the video above that shows that the movement of the dominos depends on a first mover that is not a domino.

And as I said, according to the cosmological argument everything that moves requires a mover, including the person that is tipping the first domino.

Wortfish wrote:
Only if you insist on an argument that asserts ALL things that move, require a mover.

The argument is contingent upon this observation.

Image

Wortfish wrote: You have tried to refute it with your failed claim about gravity.

A more repetition of outright falsehoods. You should sign up for the world championship of lying. You'd probably get far.

Wortfish wrote:
Except that it does not as your argument is based on blind assertions and circular reasoning.

No. It is based on observation (that moving things are moved),

Except that we don't observe or know that this is true for all things.

Wortfish wrote:refuting the impossible (the infinite regress)

Still haven't demonstrated that.

Wortfish wrote:and proposing the necessary (the first mover). :)

Still an invalid argument since both premises are not given in evidence.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 26784
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Own goal Re: Who Made God?

#527  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 12, 2017 3:05 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Greyman wrote:
Wortfish wrote:The statement "only cats eat their own"is based on what we have observed to be true. That doesn't mean it is absolutely true...only provisionally true. That's how science works. Everything is tentative because we don't have all the information yet.
Congratulations!

Now apply this to the first premises of Aquinas and Kalam and see the arguments fall flat. Since such statements as "every caused thing needs a cause" and "everything is moved by a moving mover" are provisional, there doesn't need to be a special exemption when they are found problematic. They could just be found to be wrong.


Well, yes, the fact is that the nature of the second mover/cause, which is moved/caused by an unmoved first mover/cause, does actually show that the observation couldn't have always held and so is not absolutely true.

You're missing the point.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 26784
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Who Made God?

#528  Postby monkeyboy » Aug 12, 2017 3:44 pm

Forgive me if I've got it wrong but aside from the buffoons cock waving over nuclear missiles isn't the biggest active conflict due to religious wankers trying to force their version of god onto anyone and everything? They've shown their god given morality all over the place, crucifying people, beheading them and generally massacring anyone who is doing it wrong.

I'm yet to see an atheist state attempting to spread their lack of belief all over the shop. I could be wrong, happy to be shown to be wrong but I can't recall it happening, ever. Yet history is littered with examples of religious zealots prepared to kill people in their thousands to advance their ideology.

Before anyone throws up the nazis and communism, they were political ideologies and not about advancing a religion. That Jews were targeted by nazis is a bit of a red herring since they were about racial purity rather than advancing the religious beliefs of their Catholic leader.
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5198
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#529  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 12, 2017 3:47 pm

monkeyboy wrote:Forgive me if I've got it wrong but aside from the buffoons cock waving over nuclear missiles isn't the biggest active conflict due to religious wankers trying to force their version of god onto anyone and everything? They've shown their god given morality all over the place, crucifying people, beheading them and generally massacring anyone who is doing it wrong.

I'm yet to see an atheist state attempting to spread their lack of belief all over the shop. I could be wrong, happy to be shown to be wrong but I can't recall it happening, ever. Yet history is littered with examples of religious zealots prepared to kill people in their thousands to advance their ideology.

Before anyone throws up the nazis and communism, they were political ideologies and not about advancing a religion. That Jews were targeted by nazis is a bit of a red herring since they were about racial purity rather than advancing the religious beliefs of their Catholic leader.

Que the big 3 fallacy.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 26784
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#530  Postby Thommo » Aug 12, 2017 4:21 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:

From what you've said so far, you could argue that:-

- Only Christians are complete morons, and
- Christians are not complete morons

Are compatible statements, which is basically the definition of nonsense.


No. That is not a fair representation. This is how I framed it:

- Only atheists eat their own.
- All humans can eat their own.

The second statement leaves the possibility that someone, other than an atheist, could have eaten or will eat a baby.


Well, no, that's not how you framed it. I'm surprised you forgot so fast. :scratch:
This is:-
Wortfish wrote:1. Only cats eat their own offspring.
2. Atheists can eat their own babies


You then defended this by saying the first is a provisional belief and therefore not incompatible with the second statement, which is (although distinguished in no way from the first) instead a statement of possible fact and not a statement of belief. Putting aside the fundamentally stupid way it's framed for a moment, you can take that reasoning and apply it to the two statements:-

- Only Christians are complete morons, and
- Christians are not complete morons

(which, incidentally, are not a representation of what you said at all)

And conclude the statements are equally "compatible". This is a classic example of what is known in technical circles as "chatting complete bollocks".
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21412

Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#531  Postby Wortfish » Aug 13, 2017 1:13 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Except that it doesn't.
Fabricating two completely unrelated premises does nothing of the sort.
At best, you've just reaffirmed that you don't know how categorical statements work.
At worst you've just, again, refuted the cosmological argument.
If you admit that we don't have to regard a statement as absolutely and always true, then the first premise is false.

The premise is not a categorical statement. It is a provisional observation that holds true for the present.

Meaning premise one of the cosmological argument is false. Do continue to demolish your own arguments.

No. Meaning that premise 1 may not always have been true.

And yet another blind counterfactual assertion.
Whatsoever X, means all things that are X.
That's how the English language works.

"All" is used here as an adjective whereas "whatever" is used as a pronoun. That's a big difference in my language.

In Dutch the sentence would read: Wat ook maar beweegd wordt door ander bewogen.
Which means all moving things are moved by other movers.

Not according to Google Translate. Where is the "alle" in the Dutch sentence?

False, he said that whatever moves has been moved by something else. Meaning all things that move.

He was making an observation predicated upon present understanding. Nothing categorical about it.

Stop lying. More-over this is refuted by your point about inductive reasoning.

Hume warned us that we have to be careful not to assume that phenomena have always been as they are.In this situation, our observation can hold true forever but it can't hold true for the past or else we end up with an absurd infinite regress.

Except that he does, but do continue to lie.

Nowhere does Aquinas ever state that what we presently observe has always been so. Indeed, his argument specifically counters the idea that the causal chain of motion has always been in existence.

Except that you still haven't demonstrated this to be a problem.

I have. You just keep denying that it is a problem and a logical fallacy.

Then you have no basis to assert that all things are moved by other movers.

We know that things are moved by other movers. We have yet to find an exception to this rule., gravity including. :thumbup:

This is an even bigger lie than first part of this sentence.

Cosmologists don't speak of a first mover, but they do state that there was no motion in the universe at t=0. There are some who propose the Big Bang was the result of colliding branes, but this only begs the questions as to who moved the branes.

False. That is true for our local representation of the universe. Not the entire universe as a whole.

Our universe is whatever we can observe. The motion in the observable universe is a consequence of the Big Bang.

Science has not demonstrated it in either sense of the word.

Science has demonstrated that movement is imparted by movement.

Except we don't know whether our universe if finite or infinite.

The observable universe is expanding, which indicates it is finite. Unless you postulate that the moving object came from a non-observable realm of the universe, it could not have been moving forever.

Once again you're offering a description, that fails to adress the actual point being made.

No. Gravity is a consequence of masses moving away and towards each other, bending spacetime in the process.

Yea, I don't blindly accept whatever anyone asserts, especially when I know that assertion to bases on faulty reasoning and made up shit. How dare I? The only one refusing to engage in an honest discussion is you Wortfish. You're the one who keeps ignoring or dismissing out of hand multiple rebuttals. The one who keeps mindlessly regurgitating points that have already been refuted several times.

You seem to have a problem with science, whether it be gravity, mass, energy or motion. Do you doubt scientific empiricism?

Because that refers to your initial claim that infinite regress is impossible/absurd. That's the blind assertion that makes the rest of your argument invalid.

No. My statement was that if an infinite regress is impossible, then a first mover necessarily must exist. So all Aquinas and myself have to do is show that an infinite regress is impossible to show that a first mover exists.

And this is still a classical example of circular reasoning, no matter how many times you repeat it.

No. Circular reasoning begins with an assumption. The argument from motion is an exercise in inductive reasoning and logical deduction.

Again, you haven't demonstrated this to be a problem in the first place.

I have repeatedly shown the absurdity of an infinite regress. Once again, how could we be having this discussion at this present moment if it took an endless number of moments - i.e. an end-less period - to get to this arbitrary point in time?

I don't have to. According to premise 1 of the cosmological argument, that person tipping the domino also was moved by something else and that chain goes on ad infinitum.

But we're only discussing the chain of events seen in the felling of the dominoes. This chain is initiated by a first mover that is not a domino. Extrapolating. we can logically deduce that the chain of events in the universe as a whole was initiated by a first mover too. That is not a "special pleading" but a consequence of logical necessity.

And as I said, according to the cosmological argument everything that moves requires a mover, including the person that is tipping the first domino.

Noted evasion. The person tipping the first domino is the first mover of the subsequent causal chain. We can use the cosmological argument to show what is going on with the dominoes:

1. Whatever falls has been felled by its antecedent.
2. There cannot be an infinite regress of dominoes falling.
3. Therefore, there must be something which felled a domino without itself being felled.

The first premise is based on what we know about dominoes when we observe how they presently move. But, unless we could see all of the dominoes falling, and not just a snapshot of them, we would have to conclude (rightly) that there was an unfelled first mover.

Except that we don't observe or know that this is true for all things.

We know that the law of the conservation of energy holds. We know that all the motion in the observable universe can be traced to the Big Bang and the subsequent expansion of the universe. So we can be sure that whatever moves has been moved by a mover....except when it comes to the Big Bang itself which necessarily requires there to have been an unmoved first mover.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 347

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#532  Postby Wortfish » Aug 13, 2017 1:27 am

Thommo wrote:

Well, no, that's not how you framed it. I'm surprised you forgot so fast. :scratch:
This is:-
Wortfish wrote:1. Only cats eat their own offspring.
2. Atheists can eat their own babies


You then defended this by saying the first is a provisional belief and therefore not incompatible with the second statement, which is (although distinguished in no way from the first) instead a statement of possible fact and not a statement of belief.

To be more precise, the first is actual and the second is potential. What it means is that the latter can, like the former, eat its own offspring. However, only the former have been observed to do so. Thus, we cannot rule out the possibility that an atheist has eaten a baby or will do so. It just isn't an established fact (yet).

- Only Christians are complete morons, and
- Christians are not complete morons

(which, incidentally, are not a representation of what you said at all)

And conclude the statements are equally "compatible". This is a classic example of what is known in technical circles as "chatting complete bollocks".


I think you meant "Christians are not all complete morons, but only Christians are complete morons." All that is being stated here is that there is a subset of Christians that are complete morons and this subset does not intersect with any other set.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 347

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#533  Postby scott1328 » Aug 13, 2017 1:32 am

Thommo wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:

From what you've said so far, you could argue that:-

- Only Christians are complete morons, and
- Christians are not complete morons

Are compatible statements, which is basically the definition of nonsense.


No. That is not a fair representation. This is how I framed it:

- Only atheists eat their own.
- All humans can eat their own.

The second statement leaves the possibility that someone, other than an atheist, could have eaten or will eat a baby.


Well, no, that's not how you framed it. I'm surprised you forgot so fast. :scratch:
This is:-
Wortfish wrote:1. Only cats eat their own offspring.
2. Atheists can eat their own babies


You then defended this by saying the first is a provisional belief and therefore not incompatible with the second statement, which is (although distinguished in no way from the first) instead a statement of possible fact and not a statement of belief. Putting aside the fundamentally stupid way it's framed for a moment, you can take that reasoning and apply it to the two statements:-

- Only Christians are complete morons, and
- Christians are not complete morons

(which, incidentally, are not a representation of what you said at all)

And conclude the statements are equally "compatible". This is a classic example of what is known in technical circles as "chatting complete bollocks".

I think the proper conclusion to OP's ridiculous syllogism is that "some cats are atheists"
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 7477
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#534  Postby Spinozasgalt » Aug 13, 2017 1:35 am

I'll never own another cat. They get into everything: food, laundry baskets, cosmological arguments...
When the straight and narrow gets a little too straight, roll up the joint.
Or don't. Just follow your arrow wherever it points.

Kacey Musgraves
User avatar
Spinozasgalt
RS Donator
 
Name: Jennifer
Posts: 16250
Age: 30
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#535  Postby proudfootz » Aug 13, 2017 1:36 am

scott1328 wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:

From what you've said so far, you could argue that:-

- Only Christians are complete morons, and
- Christians are not complete morons

Are compatible statements, which is basically the definition of nonsense.


No. That is not a fair representation. This is how I framed it:

- Only atheists eat their own.
- All humans can eat their own.

The second statement leaves the possibility that someone, other than an atheist, could have eaten or will eat a baby.


Well, no, that's not how you framed it. I'm surprised you forgot so fast. :scratch:
This is:-
Wortfish wrote:1. Only cats eat their own offspring.
2. Atheists can eat their own babies


You then defended this by saying the first is a provisional belief and therefore not incompatible with the second statement, which is (although distinguished in no way from the first) instead a statement of possible fact and not a statement of belief. Putting aside the fundamentally stupid way it's framed for a moment, you can take that reasoning and apply it to the two statements:-

- Only Christians are complete morons, and
- Christians are not complete morons

(which, incidentally, are not a representation of what you said at all)

And conclude the statements are equally "compatible". This is a classic example of what is known in technical circles as "chatting complete bollocks".

I think the proper conclusion to OP's ridiculous syllogism is that "some cats are atheists"


Of my cats I suspect that one may very well be an atheist, but I wouldn't be surprised if the kitten has a god or two.

Image
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 9777

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Who Made God?

#536  Postby proudfootz » Aug 13, 2017 1:42 am

Spinozasgalt wrote:I'll never own another cat. They get into everything: food, laundry baskets, cosmological arguments...


I do admire the organization and persistence of their protest campaign in memory of Schrodinger's cat.

Image

"Say her name! Her name was Mittens!"
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 9777

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#537  Postby Thommo » Aug 13, 2017 1:46 am

Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:

Well, no, that's not how you framed it. I'm surprised you forgot so fast. :scratch:
This is:-
Wortfish wrote:1. Only cats eat their own offspring.
2. Atheists can eat their own babies


You then defended this by saying the first is a provisional belief and therefore not incompatible with the second statement, which is (although distinguished in no way from the first) instead a statement of possible fact and not a statement of belief.

To be more precise, the first is actual and the second is potential. What it means is that the latter can, like the former, eat its own offspring. However, only the former have been observed to do so. Thus, we cannot rule out the possibility that an atheist has eaten a baby or will do so. It just isn't an established fact (yet).


And if that's what you mean, then - and this is important - that is what you should say. It's not a complicated thing to say, "Sometimes things we believe can be wrong".

And yes, I'd agree with that. Sometimes people believe things that are wrong. Maybe even you believe some things that are wrong. But let's be fair, this is stunningly banal, it's like pointing out that things that will happen tomorrow haven't happened yet, it's not really a suitable conversation for adults.

Wortfish wrote:
- Only Christians are complete morons, and
- Christians are not complete morons

(which, incidentally, are not a representation of what you said at all)

And conclude the statements are equally "compatible". This is a classic example of what is known in technical circles as "chatting complete bollocks".


I think you meant "Christians are not all complete morons, but only Christians are complete morons."


I didn't. What I meant was what I said and that includes the indicative sentences both before and after that fragment.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21412

Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#538  Postby Wortfish » Aug 13, 2017 2:22 am

Thommo wrote:

And if that's what you mean, then - and this is important - that is what you should say. It's not a complicated thing to say, "Sometimes things we believe can be wrong".

And yes, I'd agree with that. Sometimes people believe things that are wrong. Maybe even you believe some things that are wrong. But let's be fair, this is stunningly banal, it's like pointing out that things that will happen tomorrow haven't happened yet, it's not really a suitable conversation for adults.

The context for this is the dispute over what Aquinas wrote concerning the moving of things. I have argued that he was making a provisional and general claim (based on empirical observation) rather than a categorical and absolute claim.

I didn't. What I meant was what I said and that includes the indicative sentences both before and after that fragment.

So how does it work if only Christians are complete morons and Christians are not complete morons? :?
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 347

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#539  Postby Thommo » Aug 13, 2017 2:29 am

Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:

And if that's what you mean, then - and this is important - that is what you should say. It's not a complicated thing to say, "Sometimes things we believe can be wrong".

And yes, I'd agree with that. Sometimes people believe things that are wrong. Maybe even you believe some things that are wrong. But let's be fair, this is stunningly banal, it's like pointing out that things that will happen tomorrow haven't happened yet, it's not really a suitable conversation for adults.

The context for this is the dispute over what Aquinas wrote concerning the moving of things. I have argued that he was making a provisional and general claim (based on empirical observation) rather than a categorical and absolute claim.


Ok, and in that context it's a really bad way of making the point. If that is your point, just say it. Coming up with a nonsense pseudo syllogism doesn't help anyone.

Wortfish wrote:
I didn't. What I meant was what I said and that includes the indicative sentences both before and after that fragment.

So how does it work if only Christians are complete morons and Christians are not complete morons? :?


It "works" according to the compatibility criteria you laid out. The fact it results in something inane is exactly the point. It's designed that way to illustrate why those criteria result in saying things that are nonsense.

And let's be honest, Acquinas was a clever man, his ideas were and are certainly flawed but there's no way he was so stupid he could not distinguish between belief and fact clearly in writing. If he really was that stupid, there'd be little point discussing what he said anyway.
Last edited by Thommo on Aug 13, 2017 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21412

Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#540  Postby proudfootz » Aug 13, 2017 2:32 am

If P1 is merely provisional, and subsequently falsified, then it might be a good idea to propose a logical argument which does not begin with a false premise.

Like this:

P1: Some things cause motion for no reason.
Conclusion: Arguments from motion are a dead end.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 9777

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest