Endless Punishment, Fundie style

[Giordano]

Okay, CplFerro, as I mentioned it is amazing to me not only that you believe these ideas, but that you think your replies actually "explain" and "justify" your views. You don't "believe" in physics, but you believe in this stuff. Interesting.

 

[Donn]

Dear Donn,

Do me a favour, drop the dear thing. I know your opinion of me all too well and this feigned endearment is tedious.

I agree that white particulars exist, but the white universal does not. The whiteness of a particular does not exist outside of that particular. That we can point to different white particulars and call them all “white” only because we grasp the universal.

No; you're playing games with language. Maybe you can "grasp" the "universal", but I doubt it.

It's that universal I point to as being outside of space and time, as a simile for God. We can observe suggestive evidence for God, but God Himself is, at present, not present in space and time.

Because you say so. See the problem?

It's really not that hard to see what he's referring to.

I know this is hard for you to imagine, but, yes, it is hard to see what he was talking about. It was nonsense with a side-order of nuts.

“Being” explains the Becoming,

No, it doesn't.

whereas quantum foam or the multiverse or the perennial ignorance defense “I don't know” does not. [hands lifted palms up] “Where did all this come from?” “I don't know.”

I don't know is good enough for me. To say otherwise would be to lie.

I do know, because it's the only answer that makes sense.

How long have you been on this forum? I know it's not possible for you to not have read about logical fallacies, and yet you employ an argument from ignorance (which is closely related to argument from incredulity/credulity.)

You employ it for a keystone in your world-view. Upon this rotten base you stand and build your beliefs, your morals. Upon this you walk in the adult world and affect other beings.

I'm sorry, Ferro, but that is chilling.

 

[Giordano]

Interesting: so there must be a meaning: otherwise it would be meaningless. What shall I call this meaning? God! Okay, everything now is proven.

Oh, it doesn't sound so convincing when said so simply. I know: lets's add some words to it. Preferably lots of words to give the impression of deep thoughts.

 

[Donn]

Giordano,
It's the same way that I know myself to be a multi-millionaire. It would be hopeless and inconceivable for me not to have that much money, and so I must be rich.

The cheque is in the mail.

 

[CplFerro]

To be explicit, nothing usually means the opposite of something. Nothing is the absence of something. Didn't your quote use a very different definition?

Dear Giordano,

"Nothing" in the realm of Becoming appears to refer to a perceived absence of a known something, like the absence of a letter between the last two words in this sentence, or the absence of the last piece of pie in the refrigerator. But, for every instance of nothing, there is something in its place, however rarefied it may be ("quantum foam" or whatever).

The question of what came "before" the Universe, of where did the Universe come from, is, at least in part, asking why is there anything rather than nothing. Fatuous answers like "stuff just happens, no explanation needed" impress no one of rational bent. The Universe is subject to Reason and demands explanation.

This leads to a non-material answer. Either matter is eternal or mind is eternal. We know from logic that the Universe cannot be eternal, so that leaves mind. And when we consider "where" such mind would occupy, we find it does so in something like Hegel's Being, as the universal of being (and, everyone forgot to jab me about this, all the other universals, too) which happens to be the same, in Hegelian terms, as nothing.

In other words, in the Universe of time and space, being and nothingness alternate, sometimes one, sometimes the other, ever changing. In eternity, being and nothingness are identical and fixed, making God necessary, very much like how Nicolaus of Cusa spoke of God as necessarily existing, in his On Learned Ignorance.

In fact, it seems very much like what Cusa talked about in one of his dialogues, I believe, where God is said to be beyond both existence and non-existence. If He equates to Being, then He would be something beyond both, as we understand it.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Donn]

Either matter is eternal or mind is eternal.

No. Mind is not an alternative to matter. Mind is of matter.


Whether stuff was always here or came from nothing is moot. Your living, breathing, forgiving, loving, commanding, patient, bible-inspiring, self-torturing, self-sacrificing, rising, prayer-answering, creating god is completely different to some abstract notion forged by your ignorance and incredulity on the anvil of metaphysics.

Invent an origin for him all you like, there's not a single link in the chain from then to now, from there to here, that satisfies a jot or tittle of your faith.

 

[Giordano]

Dear Giordano,

"Nothing" in the realm of Becoming appears to refer to a perceived absence of a known something, like the absence of a letter between the last two words in this sentence, or the absence of the last piece of pie in the refrigerator. But, for every instance of nothing, there is something in its place, however rarefied it may be ("quantum foam" or whatever).

The question of what came "before" the Universe, of where did the Universe come from, is, at least in part, asking why is there anything rather than nothing. Fatuous answers like "stuff just happens, no explanation needed" impress no one of rational bent. The Universe is subject to Reason and demands explanation.

This leads to a non-material answer. Either matter is eternal or mind is eternal. We know from logic that the Universe cannot be eternal, so that leaves mind. And when we consider "where" such mind would occupy, we find it does so in something like Hegel's Being, as the universal of being (and, everyone forgot to jab me about this, all the other universals, too) which happens to be the same, in Hegelian terms, as nothing.

In other words, in the Universe of time and space, being and nothingness alternate, sometimes one, sometimes the other, ever changing. In eternity, being and nothingness are identical and fixed, making God necessary, very much like how Nicolaus of Cusa spoke of God as necessarily existing, in his On Learned Ignorance.

In fact, it seems very much like what Cusa talked about in one of his dialogues, I believe, where God is said to be beyond both existence and non-existence. If He equates to Being, then He would be something beyond both, as we understand it.

Cpl Ferro[

Still don't get it, do you?
Yours is just an erudite ways of saying "I believe in god because I believe in god." I do like the part, however, where we can't detect god because he is beyond detection. Very drole.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't understand your question, Giordano.

Cpl Ferro

I wonder why you are avoiding this?

...and #247, and #252...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10036429#post10036429

Where do you claim to have adressed Diné cosmetology?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Does your philosophy hold no possibility for the existence of necessary beings*, tsig? If not, then all beings are contingent, containing not their own reason for existence, which begs the question of where did the Universe come from in the first place.

Cpl Ferro

* Using "existence" and "being" in a non-Hegelian sense.

...in other words, since your special pleading is condign special pleading, without which the "special nature" of 'god' (as a an entity whose existence hinges upon the necessity of its existence, to separate it from what does exist) cannot be pled to be "special".

Special pleading all the circular way down.

 

[Donn]

Special pleating: please don't stare at my nakedness while I bend-over alluringly to show you my new skirt!


It's late. I should bed before I post. Avast, here I go!

 

[Slowvehicle]

And you're trying to weasel in material causes, Frozenwolf.

Well, no.

It is, in fact, you who are insinuating teleological claims. There is no "reaon" that the universe "was created". By all possible observations, the universe resembles Topsy.

"Physics" says this or says that. I don't believe "physics" has the answers here, and I don't believe anything "just exists."

And I am glad that your belief comforts you. It is, however, a belief supported by nothing other than your belief. Physics can be demonstrated; perhaps you are simply asking the wrong question, in the wrong place. You keep trying to force the answer you believe.

Yes, the all-powerful quantum fluctuations. Are quantum fluctuations mind? Or are they matter? Or are they a third thing?

Cpl Ferro

What background in physics do you have, that would give you the foundation to understand the answer?

Have you watched Sean Carroll's "Fundamental Nature of the Universe" video?

(PS: quantum fluctuations are energy variations--not a "third thing" at all)

 

[Slowvehicle]

Giordano,
It's the same way that I know myself to be a multi-millionaire. It would be hopeless and inconceivable for me not to have that much money, and so I must be rich.

The cheque is in the mail.

Hook a cousin up, then!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dear Giordano,

"Nothing" in the realm of Becoming appears to refer to a perceived absence of a known something, like the absence of a letter between the last two words in this sentence, or the absence of the last piece of pie in the refrigerator. But, for every instance of nothing, there is something in its place, however rarefied it may be ("quantum foam" or whatever).

Nothing is the absence of any something (not a different kind of thing itself).

In the same way, silence is the absence of any sound (not a different kind of sound itself).

In the same way, darkness is the absence of any light (not a different kind of light itself).

If you are using the word, "nothing" to mean something else, you should use a different word.

Words, used honestly, mean things.

The question of what came "before" the Universe, of where did the Universe come from, is, at least in part, asking why is there anything rather than nothing. Fatuous answers like "stuff just happens, no explanation needed" impress no one of rational bent. The Universe is subject to Reason and demands explanation.

In what way can you demonstrate that there was, in fact, a " 'before' the universe"? If, as some claim, time itself is a function of the existence of the universe, how can you pretend the question has meaning?

It may comfort you to believe that 'god' "existed" " 'before' the universe"; what evidence do you offer that it did?

Superstitions impress no one of a non-superstitious bent.

This leads to a non-material answer. Either matter is eternal or mind is eternal. We know from logic that the Universe cannot be eternal, so that leaves mind. And when we consider "where" such mind would occupy, we find it does so in something like Hegel's Being, as the universal of being (and, everyone forgot to jab me about this, all the other universals, too) which happens to be the same, in Hegelian terms, as nothing.

Since "mind" is an emergent property of matter, if, as seems to be indicated by our understanding of entropy, matter is, in fact, not "eternal", it is disingenuous (and downright silly) to claim that mind "must be" "eternal".

Equivocations notwithstanding.

In other words, in the Universe of time and space, being and nothingness alternate, sometimes one, sometimes the other, ever changing. In eternity, being and nothingness are identical and fixed, making God necessary, very much like how Nicolaus of Cusa spoke of God as necessarily existing, in his On Learned Ignorance.

Yep. Special pleading, and meta-special pleading, in an infinite regress all the "necessary" way down.

In fact, it seems very much like what Cusa talked about in one of his dialogues, I believe, where God is said to be beyond both existence and non-existence. If He equates to Being, then He would be something beyond both, as we understand it.

Cpl Ferro

So it was, in fact, you (despite your derision) who introduced the claim about a "third thing".

You really ought to spend 49 minutes on Carroll's presentation.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Still don't get it, do you?
Yours is just an erudite ways of saying "I believe in god because I believe in god." I do like the part, however, where we can't detect god because he is beyond detection. Very drole.

Oolon Colluphid was right.

 

[abaddon]

Dear Giordano,

I am beginning to suspect that you insert the "Dear" term so as to appear more holy.

"Nothing" in the realm of Becoming appears to refer to a perceived absence of a known something, like the absence of a letter between the last two words in this sentence, or the absence of the last piece of pie in the refrigerator. But, for every instance of nothing, there is something in its place, however rarefied it may be ("quantum foam" or whatever).

This reminds me of Rowan Atkinson's sermon in his vicar persona, where he rambled on for ages with meaningless drivel such as "We are one in him, and he is one in us". It means nothing. And that was his point. Religious verbosity is simply an attempt to cloak lack of content.

The question of what came "before" the Universe, of where did the Universe come from, is, at least in part, asking why is there anything rather than nothing.

Except that there was no before.

Fatuous answers like "stuff just happens, no explanation needed" impress no one of rational bent.

Except you simply made up that strawman out of whole cloth.

The Universe is subject to Reason and demands explanation.

Yup. Physics wins, superstition loses.

This leads to a non-material answer.

Nope.

Either matter is eternal or mind is eternal.

False dichotomy.

We know from logic that the Universe cannot be eternal, so that leaves mind.

False. There is no reason for anything to be eternal.

And when we consider "where" such mind would occupy, we find it does so in something like Hegel's Being, as the universal of being (and, everyone forgot to jab me about this, all the other universals, too) which happens to be the same, in Hegelian terms, as nothing.

Emergent behaviour of simple matter so false again.

In other words, in the Universe of time and space, being and nothingness alternate, sometimes one, sometimes the other, ever changing. In eternity, being and nothingness are identical and fixed, making God necessary, very much like how Nicolaus of Cusa spoke of God as necessarily existing, in his On Learned Ignorance.

You have simply latched onto Nick and assume he is correct.

In fact, it seems very much like what Cusa talked about in one of his dialogues, I believe, where God is said to be beyond both existence and non-existence. If He equates to Being, then He would be something beyond both, as we understand it.

Cpl Ferro

Watch out, here comes the god of the gaps.

Why do you suppose it might be that the gaps your god can hide in are getting smaller and smaller? Why is that?

 

[abaddon]

And if you wish to cite Nick of cusa, feel free to explain his anti-semitism.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

And you're trying to weasel in material causes, Frozenwolf.

Well no, material causes are the only thing we can observe and test, and the only thing we have any evidence of, so to pretend you know otherwise is dishonest.

"Physics" says this or says that. I don't believe "physics" has the answers here, and I don't believe anything "just exists."

I have highlighted your problem.

Yes, the all-powerful quantum fluctuations. Are quantum fluctuations mind? Or are they matter? Or are they a third thing?

I never said it was a mind, or a third thing.
http://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html

 

[Giordano]

I like the term "weasel in natural causes." It sounds so sinister.

 

[Giordano]

CplFerro,

If on entering heaven, you found out that everyone gets to heaven, would it please you or not?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I like the term "weasel in natural causes." It sounds so sinister.

Like an existentialist dinner-theatre noir...