Long term miracle cures test
May 23rd, 2017 at 3:26:55 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25010 |
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.
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: 67 Posts: 7596 |
Sure it is.
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.
Nope. Saying that there is no first cause or unmoved mover is whatever is worse than "handwavium". “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
May 23rd, 2017 at 4:14:21 PM permalink | |
FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 |
See fascism, racism, eugenics, relative morality, and any host of intellectual concepts that are incorrect.
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?
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. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
May 23rd, 2017 at 4:40:44 PM permalink | |
Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
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.
If the universe is infinite, you can have infinite regress. You can even have infinite regress in a finite universe if it is eternal.
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.
That would be "unobtainium." Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
May 23rd, 2017 at 9:33:03 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25010 |
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.
You made a joke, very good. Philosophical truth is an oxymoron if there ever was one.
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: 67 Posts: 7596 |
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.
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. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
May 24th, 2017 at 5:57:51 AM permalink | |
FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 |
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?
You thinking philosophical truth is an oxymoron is a philosophical statement. You saying there is no God is a philosophical statement.
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." “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
May 24th, 2017 at 6:34:39 AM permalink | |
Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
It keeps getting bigger with no apparent end in sight. How big does something need to be before it's infinite in size.
We don't know that. The Big Bang marks the beginning of the universe's expansion, not of the universe itself.
Handwavium.
Why not?
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. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
May 24th, 2017 at 7:16:54 AM permalink | |
Dalex64 Member since: Mar 8, 2014 Threads: 3 Posts: 3687 | 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: 67 Posts: 7596 |
ummm...infinite?
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.
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.
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. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |