Long term miracle cures test

Page 5 of 7« First<234567>
May 23rd, 2017 at 3:26:55 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 110
Posts: 11603
Quote: FrGamble
Did you notice that everything you mentioned that philosophers got wrong was science.


Of course. How can they get philosophy wrong,
how can a hypothetical intellectual concept be incorrect.
It just hangs out there on it's own, supported
by it's own hot air. Like 'god created the world', an
unproveable hot air concept if there ever was
one.

Quote:
That is a good point.


Yet you stated unequivocally that your church
invented the scientific method, which it 100%
did not. So either you made it up, or they
lied to you about it. Science is the natural
outcome of superstition and belief in the
supernatural. Some smart people get curious
about what the real truth is, and superstition
and religion are always the losers eventually.
Without the most blatant superstition and
belief in the supernatural, there would be
no Christianity. It doesn't stand up well
when common sense is applied to it.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
May 23rd, 2017 at 4:10:31 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 45
Posts: 5191
Quote: Nareed
"Because my theory needs it to get rid of the infinities," is not a valid, real reason.


Sure it is.


Quote:
Your argument seems to be mere analogy. A watch presupposes a watch-maker, a stork presupposes a stork-maker, and a universe presupposes a universe-maker. Fine. But then a creator presupposes a creator-maker, and ain't we got fun and an infinite regress.


No. This is why you can't have an infinite regress, see above. We need to define the necessary characteristics of what you are calling a creator and I am calling God. This creator must be non-contingent. This means that to be the real starting place for everything that exists this creator must not be dependent on anything else for its existence. It must have the reason for its existence in itself. In short it is the source of all being and holds all being in existence. It is not part of existence, but as Evenbob would say is outside of nature and is itself the source and reason for all that exists. It might really help if you got rid of the old image of God as an old guy in the sky. God is the all-powerful, non-contingent, eternal, spiritual creator of everything.


Quote:
Saying the creator is the Ultimate Cause, or Unmovable Mover, is, if you'll pardon the vulgarity, Handwavium.


Nope. Saying that there is no first cause or unmoved mover is whatever is worse than "handwavium".
May 23rd, 2017 at 4:14:21 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 45
Posts: 5191
Quote: Evenbob
Of course. How can they get philosophy wrong,
how can a hypothetical intellectual concept be incorrect.


See fascism, racism, eugenics, relative morality, and any host of intellectual concepts that are incorrect.

Quote:
It just hangs out there on it's own, supported
by it's own hot air. Like 'god created the world', an
unproveable hot air concept if there ever was
one.


You are just being foolish here. "God" created the world is a philosophical truth. Please instead of blowing hot air tell me why the idea of a unmoved mover is incorrect?



Quote:
Yet you stated unequivocally that your church
invented the scientific method, which it 100%
did not. So either you made it up, or they
lied to you about it.


I thought it up myself based on the support and the clarifications on the scientific method made by the Church. However, you raised a good point and I was wrong. The Church did not come up with the philosophical theory of the scientific method all on its own.
May 23rd, 2017 at 4:40:44 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 328
Posts: 11352
Quote: FrGamble
Sure it is.


No, it isn't. It's a valid reason to go looking for something that will resolve the values of the infinities.

Besides, as far as I understand it, your god solution is also an infinity. That makes no logical sense.

Quote:
No. This is why you can't have an infinite regress, see above.


If the universe is infinite, you can have infinite regress. You can even have infinite regress in a finite universe if it is eternal.

Quote:
This creator must be non-contingent.


I'll bite. What if your "God" is part of the creation of some other "God," who was created by another "God," who was created by another "God," and so on for, oh, ten quadrillion times? How do you prove this is not the case?

Ten quadrillions is as far from infinity as 1.


Quote:
Nope. Saying that there is no first cause or unmoved mover is whatever is worse than "handwavium".


That would be "unobtainium."
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
May 23rd, 2017 at 9:33:03 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 110
Posts: 11603
Quote: FrGamble
See fascism, racism, eugenics, relative morality, and any host of intellectual concepts that are incorrect.


None of these were intended to be wrong, though.
All these concepts were meant to uplift the human
condition, not drag it down. You have to look at
intent, not at the outcome.

Quote:
"God" created the world is a philosophical truth.


You made a joke, very good. Philosophical truth
is an oxymoron if there ever was one.

Quote:
The Church did not come up with the philosophical theory of the scientific method all on its own.


Or at all. Yes, the saying in science has long
been "Lets turn to the Catholic Church for
our scientific answers." Not. It's more like
'lets run from the Church as fast as we can
before they shut us down'.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
May 24th, 2017 at 5:49:14 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 45
Posts: 5191
Quote: Nareed

If the universe is infinite, you can have infinite regress. You can even have infinite regress in a finite universe if it is eternal.


We are all jumbled up here. The universe is not infinite because no material thing can be. Nor is the universe eternal because it had a beginning.



Quote:
I'll bite. What if your "God" is part of the creation of some other "God," who was created by another "God," who was created by another "God," and so on for, oh, ten quadrillion times? How do you prove this is not the case?


This is exactly the problem with an infinite regress and I thank you for pointing it out. There needs to be a NON-CONTINGENT creator. Every "God" you mention in your above question is contingent on being the creation of some other "God". Surely you see how this cannot be the case. It can't be turtles all the way down as they say. These turtles have to be resting on something or we wouldn't even be able to discuss them, they wouldn't exist. Think of history. If every action is based on something that happened before it in an infinite regress we would never get to the primordial action that began time and therefore our present would not have anything to be based on and would not exist.
May 24th, 2017 at 5:57:51 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 45
Posts: 5191
Quote: Evenbob
None of these were intended to be wrong, though.
All these concepts were meant to uplift the human
condition, not drag it down. You have to look at
intent, not at the outcome.


A couple of questions: Do you think the people who thought the earth was flat intended to be wrong? Look at the intent of racism or eugenics; do you really thing they were meant to uplift the human condition? What possible outcome did those who held such evil ideas hope to achieve that was not wrong?



Quote:
You made a joke, very good. Philosophical truth
is an oxymoron if there ever was one.


You thinking philosophical truth is an oxymoron is a philosophical statement. You saying there is no God is a philosophical statement.



Quote:
Or at all. Yes, the saying in science has long
been "Lets turn to the Catholic Church for
our scientific answers." Not. It's more like
'lets run from the Church as fast as we can
before they shut us down'.


You are so full of it and can't see past these myths you were brainwashed with. Why would anyone turn to a religion for their scientific answers? The Church has long said, "Lets turn to science for our scientific answers."
May 24th, 2017 at 6:34:39 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 328
Posts: 11352
Quote: FrGamble
We are all jumbled up here. The universe is not infinite because no material thing can be.


It keeps getting bigger with no apparent end in sight. How big does something need to be before it's infinite in size.

Quote:
Nor is the universe eternal because it had a beginning.


We don't know that. The Big Bang marks the beginning of the universe's expansion, not of the universe itself.

Quote:
There needs to be a NON-CONTINGENT creator.


Handwavium.

Quote:
Every "God" you mention in your above question is contingent on being the creation of some other "God". Surely you see how this cannot be the case.


Why not?

Quote:
It can't be turtles all the way down as they say.


Not all the way down. Just ten quadrillion universes.

Think of the biggest number you can. It's rather impossible, but we can make up a really big number: ten to the 10th to the 100th power is a googolplex. A bigger number if googolplex +1. A bigger one still is googolplex + 1 * 3. Or how about googolplex! (factorial). That's a googolplex multiplied by a googolplex-1, multiplied by a googolplex-2, multiplied by a googolplex-3, and so on until you reach the number 2 (which should take an eternity to do).

That effingly BIG number is much, much, much, much bigger than 1. But compared to infinity, it's hard to tell apart from 1, the way that $100 and $0.01 are about as far removed from $1,000,000,000 as makes no difference.

So if there were a ((googolplex!)!) of universes with ours on one end and the original non-contingent creator's on the other, that's as short from an infinite regress as if there were 1 and only 1 universe.

In fact, if there are infinity-1 universes between us and the original non-contingent universe, that's still not an infinite regress.

That's a short lesson in infinity. Some other time we may tackle eternity.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
May 24th, 2017 at 7:16:54 AM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 2
Posts: 1872
So, the reasoning is that since there can't be an infinite number of turtles, there must be only one?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
May 24th, 2017 at 8:22:25 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 45
Posts: 5191
Quote: Nareed
It keeps getting bigger with no apparent end in sight. How big does something need to be before it's infinite in size.


ummm...infinite?



Quote:
We don't know that. The Big Bang marks the beginning of the universe's expansion, not of the universe itself.


We do know the universe had a beginning and the evidence points to that. However, if the Big Bang is not the beginning than something else was because the universe is contingent and material and in motion.



Quote:
Handwavium.


Just like to point out that the definition of handwavium would be to just say one word in some attempt to magically escape from explaining yourself and supporting your argument.



Quote:
Not all the way down. Just ten quadrillion universes.

So if there were a ((googolplex!)!) of universes with ours on one end and the original non-contingent creator's on the other, that's as short from an infinite regress as if there were 1 and only 1 universe.

In fact, if there are infinity-1 universes between us and the original non-contingent universe, that's still not an infinite regress.

That's a short lesson in infinity. Some other time we may tackle eternity.



You keep using that word and I don't think you really know what it means. (Paraphrase from the Princess Bride) Anyway no matter how big a number you can imagine (and that is key) you will still be infinitely far from reaching the infinite. You seem to be trying to just delay the inevitable end to the regress by positing many, many, universes. Go for it! No matter what you imagine you will still find yourself at some point at the absolute beginning, the first cause, aka God.



These turtles have to be resting on something or we wouldn't even be able to discuss them, they wouldn't exist. Think of history. If every action is based on something that happened before it in an infinite regress we would never get to the primordial action that began time and therefore our present would not have anything to be based on and would not exist.
Page 5 of 7« First<234567>