David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[Bryan]

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mame raths outgrabe.

74615[/snapback]

He'll huff and he'll puff, but where's the third option that escapes the dilemma?

[Strife767]

He'll huff and he'll puff, but where's the third option that escapes the dilemma?

74696[/snapback]

Someone hasn't read his own signature in a while.

[Guest Guest]

He'll huff and he'll puff, but where's the third option that escapes the dilemma?

74696[/snapback]

In the wabe, dimwit.

You seem to have missed the point.

[Guest Guest]

In the wabe, dimwit.

You seem to have missed the point.

74755[/snapback]

On the contrary, the dimwit got the point. He recognized that he was being called on posting gibberish, and did his usual routine of trying to put the burden for his own inanity on the reader.

Take this bit of cluelessness: "You're free to try to deny it--but you're left with an infinite regress. Have fun with that." No sh--, Sherlock. If you think in linear Newtonian terms, of course we're left with an infinite regress. So are you. When you recognize that things may not be as they seem (as demonstrated by the inadequacies of Newtonian physics on very large and very small scales), you also recognize that the great mysteries of the universe aren't accessible to us, at least not yet. That's why we still call them mysteries.

--- That doesn't defeat science, which continues to advance; it only poses another challenge. We may never get to final answers, but we'll continue to make practical progress in ways that improve our lives - for most people, whether they admit it or not, that matters more than unfounded guesses about final answers, especially when we don't even know what the questions are.

--- However, it does render useless all theologies that presume to give final answers (which haven't advanced an inch toward explaining the universe in the several millennia of their existence), including fundamentalist Christianity.

Then there's my favorite bit of Bryan babble: "For a number of reasons the first cause is likely personal and eternal. For one thing, having a first cause arises without cause fulfills no explanatory need. Rather, it posits a needless complication." As though he has some basis for this gibberish (which, of course, can have no basis since it's gibberish).

The problem with most of what Bryan writes is that it's all about hypothetical non-realities, fantasies in the mind of a would-be philosopher (and not a very good one at that). There's no frame of reference for any of it. To have a frame of reference, we'd have to be able to step outside the universe and observe it, which of course we can't do; or at the very least, to have anything at all interesting to discuss on the matter, come up with a theory that accurately predicts things, which theology hasn't done either. It's all just guesswork. It's hasn't advanced one micrometer since the first caveman heard thunder and thought someone in the sky must be angry. The problem here is that people like Bryan aren't just giving the wrong answers; they're trying to address questions that are completely beyond our scope of understanding. It's a pity most people don't get that point, including I'm sorry to say, most non-theists.

So don't expect the king of convoluted crap to explain his nonsense. The Red Queen herself would blush.

[KOTW]

Support KOTW purchase The Universe: The Big Bang DVD

[Strife767]

Support KOTW purchase The Universe: The Big Bang DVD

75001[/snapback]

Aren't there already more than enough ads around here? Geez.

[Bryan]

In the wabe, dimwit.

You seem to have missed the point.

74755[/snapback]

You'd have to be mocking yourself for the third option to be "in the wabe."

That wouldn't be like the "Guest" I know to do that.

[Bryan]

And in like fashion, ad nauseam. ". .. having a first cause arises without cause fulfills no explanatory need." OK, maybe he meant ". .. having a first cause arise without cause fulfills no explanatory need." Explanatory need? What the hell is that, and what does it have to do with the nature of reality?

It means, dear "Guest," that in terms of explanation a first cause that arises uncaused at some moment in time does not assist the picture of reality any better than an eternal first cause.

And how does anyone know?

Well, you could always suggest some manner in which it makes a difference how the first cause got there to cause things. Technically, suggesting a temporal beginning for a first cause is actually suggesting that the first cause had a cause, and that cause was Nothing.

The amazing thing is, Bryan thinks he's actually saying something.

The amazing thing is that geniuses such as you are still trying to suggest that I'm not saying anything.

It would be easy enough for you to simply plead ignorance (I doubt you'd get much argument), but when you as much as assert that I'm not saying anything it implies that you know what you're saying.

Yet the evidence you provide suggests the opposite.

". .. having a first cause arises without cause fulfills no explanatory need." Yeah. No doubt that'll be on the front page of all leading newspapers tomorrow as the latest cosmological breakthrough.

74554[/snapback]

Jealous?

[Bryan]

On the contrary, the dimwit got the point. He recognized that he was being called on posting gibberish, and did his usual routine of trying to put the burden for his own inanity on the reader.

The usual way to destroy a fallacy of the false dilemma, if that's what you think I did, is to provide the missing third option.

Calling the dilemma gibberish is a red herring fallacy. And you're joining in.

How can I expect less from "Guest"?

Take this bit of cluelessness: "You're free to try to deny it--but you're left with an infinite regress. Have fun with that." No sh--, Sherlock. If you think in linear Newtonian terms, of course we're left with an infinite regress.

You're left with an infinite regress regardless. Hawking can't free you from it, not that you've even gone through the trouble of dropping a name to advance your argument.

So are you. When you recognize that things may not be as they seem (as demonstrated by the inadequacies of Newtonian physics on very large and very small scales), you also recognize that the great mysteries of the universe aren't accessible to us, at least not yet. That's why we still call them mysteries.

Wow. Deep.

As hand-waves go, anyway.

--- That doesn't defeat science, which continues to advance; it only poses another challenge. We may never get to final answers, but we'll continue to make practical progress in ways that improve our lives - for most people, whether they admit it or not, that matters more than unfounded guesses about final answers, especially when we don't even know what the questions are.

And who cares about the meaning of life if you've got a cool cell phone?

--- However, it does render useless all theologies that presume to give final answers (which haven't advanced an inch toward explaining the universe in the several millennia of their existence), including fundamentalist Christianity.

Really? Useless in what way, your Granfalloonship?

Then there's my favorite bit of Bryan babble: "For a number of reasons the first cause is likely personal and eternal. For one thing, having a first cause arises without cause fulfills no explanatory need. Rather, it posits a needless complication." As though he has some basis for this gibberish (which, of course, can have no basis since it's gibberish).

I have a good basis for the statement.

As with the other "Guest" you could no doubt plead ignorance quite believably, but you have offered no rationale for calling my statement gibberish save for your failure to make sense of it. That is a fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (I don't get it so it has no meaning).

The problem with most of what Bryan writes is that it's all about hypothetical non-realities, fantasies in the mind of a would-be philosopher (and not a very good one at that).

What's hypothetical about a real dilemma?

There's no frame of reference for any of it.

A dilemma frames itself. Are you going to provide the third option or keep spewing red herring?

[Bryan]

Someone hasn't read his own signature in a while.

74703[/snapback]

Someone's not doing a very good job of having me on ignore.

[Strife767]

Someone's not doing a very good job of having me on ignore.

75603[/snapback]

I just happened to glance at this block of four posts in a row (only fully read this short one, though), so I happened to notice this.

Newsflash: ignoring you doesn't stop your posts from appearing in others'

tags, stupid.

[Guest Guest]

A dilemma frames itself.  Are you going to provide the third option or keep spewing red herring?

75602[/snapback]

But knucklehead, the answer doesn't frame itself, and you're proposing an answer. You don't have a frame of reference for it, and therefore no basis for it.

". . . a first cause that arises uncaused at some moment in time does not assist the picture of reality any better than an eternal first cause . . ."

Or vice versa, genius. You're just making it up. You don't know that either of them is even possible according to fundamental laws of reality, whatever those might be. The truth may be something completely outside your earth-bound philosophical guesswork; it might a reality of which you cannot even conceive because you don't have the mental framework for it.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we humans on planet Earth are nowhere near answering these questions. We don't even know how to ask them.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE

And how does anyone know?

Well, you could always suggest some manner in which it makes a difference how the first cause got there to cause things. Technically, suggesting a temporal beginning for a first cause is actually suggesting that the first cause had a cause, and that cause was Nothing.

75599[/snapback]

In other words you don't know. No conclusions can appropriately be drawn from any of this. You can ponder, guess and speculate, but you can't drawn any sound conclusions because this is beyond us at present.

If you disagree, Bryan, then what conclusions are to be drawn from your musings?

[Bryan]

But knucklehead, the answer doesn't frame itself, and you're proposing an answer. You don't have a frame of reference for it, and therefore no basis for it.

Well, if you won't accept logic as a basis for something, maybe.

". . . a first cause that arises uncaused at some moment in time does not assist the picture of reality any better than an eternal first cause . . ."

Or vice versa, genius.

Either way, we're on one side of the dilemma. Or hadn't you noticed?

You're just making it up. You don't know that either of them is even possible according to fundamental laws of reality, whatever those might be.

Ah, yes, the old "atheism of the gaps" trick. Good one.

The truth may be something completely outside your earth-bound philosophical guesswork; it might a reality of which you cannot even conceive because you don't have the mental framework for it.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we humans on planet Earth are nowhere near answering these questions. We don't even know how to ask them.

75687[/snapback]

How could you know that minus some specific knowledge of the answer?

You've run into the same problem that plagues the Muslim conception of God: Nothing about Allah can be known (apparently except for the fact that nothing about God can be known).

[Bryan]

I just happened to glance at this block of four posts in a row (only fully read this short one, though), so I happened to notice this.

And I just happened to reply to some posts by Guests.

Newsflash: ignoring you doesn't stop your posts from appearing in others' tags, stupid.

75666[/snapback]

Ignoring me does keep you from replying, Strife, unless you stop ignoring me for a time. QED. Way to keep that streak intact.

[Guest Guest]

Well, if you won't accept logic as a basis for something, maybe.

". . . a first cause that arises uncaused at some moment in time does not assist the picture of reality any better than an eternal first cause . . ."

Either way, we're on one side of the dilemma.  Or hadn't you noticed?

Ah, yes, the old "atheism of the gaps" trick.  Good one. 

How could you know that minus some specific knowledge of the answer? 

You've run into the same problem that plagues the Muslim conception of God:  Nothing about Allah can be known (apparently except for the fact that nothing about God can be known).

75739[/snapback]

Thousands of years ago, before people understood that thunder was an interaction between hot and cold air in the atmosphere, primitive people explained thunder by saying there must be a thunder god and he must be angry. Today, if Aunt Millie suddenly and inexplicably goes into remission from her cancer, primitive-thinking people still say God must have cured her. They wouldn't say that if Aunt Millie's tumor had gradually shrunk after radiation therapy, but whenever something happens that they cannot explain, some people say "God must have done it." Using "God" as an explanation for things people don't understand is called "God in the gaps."

In post 464, Bryan accuses someone of applying "atheism of the gaps." That was in response to this statement from post 462: "You don't know that either of them is even possible according to fundamental laws of reality, whatever those might be. The truth may be something completely outside your earth-bound philosophical guesswork; it might a reality of which you cannot even conceive because you don't have the mental framework for it."

That writer, in turn, was commenting on Bryan's convoluted statement that ". . . a first cause that arises uncaused at some moment in time does not assist the picture of reality any better than an eternal first cause . . ."

To straighten that mess out, let's review, in English this time. Bryan was proposing two possibilities: (1) a first cause that arises uncaused at some moment in time and (2) an eternal first cause. The writer in post 462 correctly observed that we don't know whether either of those things is possible. In response, Bryan then accused the other writer of "atheism of the gaps."

Bryan either doesn't know what he's talking about or doesn't care what he writes. The writer of post 462 was referring to negative atheism, which means that the person says, in substance, "I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence that a god exists." There's no such thing as "atheism in the gaps" with that kind of atheism because it isn't proposing to explain anything. It's an epistemological statement, not a claim about the ultimate nature of reality or the ultimate origins of things.

The same is true of the writer's comment that we have no knowledge whether a first cause is consistent with nature and reality, regardless whether it arose "at some moment in time" or was eternal. That's not atheism in the gaps. It's just an observation, and a correct one, about the limits of human knowledge.

Apparently Bryan doesn't think those limits apply to him, but they do. His arrogance in assuming that he can answer once and for all the questions that people far more intelligent and far more educated than he have been pondering over for centuries, with not a hint of success in sight, is stunning.

Of course logic isn't a sufficient basis for a scientific conclusion (theory). It never has been. Science has always been an interplay between theory (which includes, but is not limited to logic) and empiricism. The observation has been made repeatedly that Bryan has no frame of reference for his conclusions. That observation is correct. Scientists think logically, but a scientific theory is never limited to logic alone. That's just not how science works.

Bryan doesn't seem particularly concerned with that. He seems to think that his academic, hypothetical philosophy can trump science. The problem with that is that science has a proven record of success. Philosophy does not. The problem with using logic alone to answer a question about nature is that there are always premises behind seemingly logical statements about nature. If those premises are wrong, then the logic collapses completely, and is utterly worthless. Which explains 99% of what Bryan writes.

[Bryan]

Thousands of years ago, before people understood that thunder was an interaction between hot and cold air in the atmosphere, primitive people explained thunder by saying there must be a thunder god and he must be angry. Today, if Aunt Millie suddenly and inexplicably goes into remission from her cancer, primitive-thinking people still say God must have cured her. They wouldn't say that if Aunt Millie's tumor had gradually shrunk after radiation therapy, but whenever something happens that they cannot explain, some people say "God must have done it." Using "God" as an explanation for things people don't understand is called "God in the gaps."

In post 464, Bryan accuses someone of applying "atheism of the gaps." That was in response to this statement from post 462: "You don't know that either of them is even possible according to fundamental laws of reality, whatever those might be. The truth may be something completely outside your earth-bound philosophical guesswork; it might a reality of which you cannot even conceive because you don't have the mental framework for it."

That writer, in turn, was commenting on Bryan's convoluted statement that ". . . a first cause that arises uncaused at some moment in time does not assist the picture of reality any better than an eternal first cause . . ."

His comment was an attempt to distract from a logical dilemma.

To straighten that mess out, let's review, in English this time. Bryan was proposing two possibilities: (1) a first cause that arises uncaused at some moment in time and (2) an eternal first cause. The writer in post 462 correctly observed that we don't know whether either of those things is possible. In response, Bryan then accused the other writer of "atheism of the gaps."

After I pointed out that he was already working on one side of the logical dilemma. Why did you leave that out?

Bryan either doesn't know what he's talking about or doesn't care what he writes. The writer of post 462 was referring to negative atheism, which means that the person says, in substance, "I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence that a god exists." There's no such thing as "atheism in the gaps" with that kind of atheism because it isn't proposing to explain anything. It's an epistemological statement, not a claim about the ultimate nature of reality or the ultimate origins of things.

Apparently "Guest" missed the fact that the distraction "Guest" was using was a causal explanation of a first cause (where the cause was Nothing--"uncaused").

The same is true of the writer's comment that we have no knowledge whether a first cause is consistent with nature and reality, regardless whether it arose "at some moment in time" or was eternal. That's not atheism in the gaps. It's just an observation, and a correct one, about the limits of human knowledge.

Apparently "Guest" overlooked the fact that "Guest" can't know that we have no knowledge of whether we have no knowledge unless he has that knowledge (self-refuting statement).

Apparently Bryan doesn't think those limits apply to him, but they do.

By ignoring the self-contradiction, eh?

You just proved again why you're a waste of time. Too easy, too anonymous.

[Guest Guest]

His comment was an attempt to distract from a logical dilemma.

After I pointed out that he was already working on one side of the logical dilemma.  Why did you leave that out?

Apparently "Guest" missed the fact that the distraction "Guest" was using was a causal explanation of a first cause (where the cause was Nothing--"uncaused").

Apparently "Guest" overlooked the fact that "Guest" can't know that we have no knowledge of whether we have no knowledge unless he has that knowledge (self-refuting statement).

By ignoring the self-contradiction, eh?

You just proved again why you're a waste of time.  Too easy, too anonymous.

75948[/snapback]

Dude, you got spanked.

[Strife767]

His comment was an attempt to distract from a logical dilemma.

After I pointed out that he was already working on one side of the logical dilemma.  Why did you leave that out?

Apparently "Guest" missed the fact that the distraction "Guest" was using was a causal explanation of a first cause (where the cause was Nothing--"uncaused").

Apparently "Guest" overlooked the fact that "Guest" can't know that we have no knowledge of whether we have no knowledge unless he has that knowledge (self-refuting statement).

By ignoring the self-contradiction, eh?

You just proved again why you're a waste of time.  Too easy, too anonymous.

75948[/snapback]

Dude, you got spanked.

75963[/snapback]

Bryan's still contradicting his signature.

[Guest Guest]

His comment was an attempt to distract from a logical dilemma.

After I pointed out that he was already working on one side of the logical dilemma.  Why did you leave that out?

Apparently "Guest" missed the fact that the distraction "Guest" was using was a causal explanation of a first cause (where the cause was Nothing--"uncaused").

Apparently "Guest" overlooked the fact that "Guest" can't know that we have no knowledge of whether we have no knowledge unless he has that knowledge (self-refuting statement).

By ignoring the self-contradiction, eh?

You just proved again why you're a waste of time.  Too easy, too anonymous.

75948[/snapback]

You can't derive reasonable answers about the shape and nature of reality itself with logic. What you're calling "logic" as it relates to a hypothetical "first cause" assumes things about the nature of reality. In other words, you're trying to figure out the nature of reality by assuming the nature of reality. That's circular reasoning, and therefore completely worthless.

The other thing that makes your argument utterly worthless is that we already know that seemingly logical assumptions about causation don't work for things very small (infinitesimal) or very large (the context of the universe, for example --- a contradiction in terms? --- at present we have no way to know). Subatomic particles don't seem to "obey" the laws of logic. Light seems to behave in ways that were thought to be impossible before the double slit experiment. You can't use the usual assumptions of logic in this context because science has already demonstrated that some of the most basic "logical" conclusions about the universe are wrong.

For example, people think about causation in time and space, the inescapable context of everything we observe. Newton told us that gravity was a force. Einstein proved that Newton's conception about gravity was fundamentally wrong. And yet the best scientists can say now about gravity is that it is a warp in the fabric of space. That doesn't tell us what gravity is, but only how it behaves. Science advances by making closer and closer approximations to the truth, not by getting the whole truth about everything in one grand sweep. There's still much to learn. However, the learning we do is through science, not theology or what you call philosophy. You're not even giving any credence to science. The arrogance of that is stunning, even for you.

Bryan, you're making a fool of yourself. If unlocking the remaining mysteries of the universe was as simple as you're making it out to be, scientists would sit around making clever remarks instead of doing the hard work of physics, including atomic physics and astrophysics. No one expects you to get a degree in physics, but at least you could cultivate a little humility about a discipline that is founded on much hard work by a great many people who are far smarter than you, and has a long track record of success.

Furthermore, there's no atheism in the gaps. Saying that we can't make any reliable statements about the ultimate nature of reality because there are too many things we don't know, is just an observation about the state of our knowledge; and a true statement at that.

And it doesn't matter if you're on one side of a dilemma, because even if you're right and there is a dilemma (as opposed to a problem we just don't understand), then you're the last person who should be proposing logic as a solution. If you knew anything about what a dilemma is, you would have realized that logic can't solve it. That's the point and essence of a dilemma. It has no logical solution.

Then you want to know, "minus some specific knowledge of the answer," how we know that we can't answer the ultimate questions about the nature of things and don't even know how to ask the questions. You're getting completely silly at this point, but I'll assume that you're being sincere. You want to compare that to Muslim theology, but the comparison makes no sense at all. Cosmology is not theology. One is science, the other mainly guesswork and wishful thinking. The reason we know that we can't know is that science has already made confounding discoveries at the subatomic and cosmological levels, as noted above, and also that we have no idea how many layers of reality there are. Are time and space the only dimensions? What are black holes about? What's just outside the edge of the universe, and then beyond that? We don't know the answers to any of those questions. We don't even know that they are meaningful questions. They may be complete dead-ends. We can't know because we don't know the context, IOW, we have no frame of reference.

Come on, Bryan, this is high school stuff by now at best, easily accessible to a bright twelve-year-old. Do you really think you're fooling anyone with your claims about knowing whether there probably is a first cause? That stuff may have been interesting 1,500 hundred years ago, but it's worthless today. Why do you think we call that era "the Dark Ages?" We're past that, Bryan. Get with the program.

[Guest Guest]

Thousands of years ago, before people understood that thunder was an interaction between hot and cold air in the atmosphere, primitive people explained thunder by saying there must be a thunder god and he must be angry. Today, if Aunt Millie suddenly and inexplicably goes into remission from her cancer, primitive-thinking people still say God must have cured her. They wouldn't say that if Aunt Millie's tumor had gradually shrunk after radiation therapy, but whenever something happens that they cannot explain, some people say "God must have done it." Using "God" as an explanation for things people don't understand is called "God in the gaps."

In post 464, Bryan accuses someone of applying "atheism of the gaps." That was in response to this statement from post 462: "You don't know that either of them is even possible according to fundamental laws of reality, whatever those might be. The truth may be something completely outside your earth-bound philosophical guesswork; it might a reality of which you cannot even conceive because you don't have the mental framework for it."

That writer, in turn, was commenting on Bryan's convoluted statement that ". . . a first cause that arises uncaused at some moment in time does not assist the picture of reality any better than an eternal first cause . . ."

To straighten that mess out, let's review, in English this time. Bryan was proposing two possibilities: (1) a first cause that arises uncaused at some moment in time and (2) an eternal first cause. The writer in post 462 correctly observed that we don't know whether either of those things is possible. In response, Bryan then accused the other writer of "atheism of the gaps."

Bryan either doesn't know what he's talking about or doesn't care what he writes. The writer of post 462 was referring to negative atheism, which means that the person says, in substance, "I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence that a god exists." There's no such thing as "atheism in the gaps" with that kind of atheism because it isn't proposing to explain anything. It's an epistemological statement, not a claim about the ultimate nature of reality or the ultimate origins of things.

The same is true of the writer's comment that we have no knowledge whether a first cause is consistent with nature and reality, regardless whether it arose "at some moment in time" or was eternal. That's not atheism in the gaps. It's just an observation, and a correct one, about the limits of human knowledge.

Apparently Bryan doesn't think those limits apply to him, but they do. His arrogance in assuming that he can answer once and for all the questions that people far more intelligent and far more educated than he have been pondering over for centuries, with not a hint of success in sight, is stunning.

Of course logic isn't a sufficient basis for a scientific conclusion (theory). It never has been. Science has always been an interplay between theory (which includes, but is not limited to logic) and empiricism. The observation has been made repeatedly that Bryan has no frame of reference for his conclusions. That observation is correct. Scientists think logically, but a scientific theory is never limited to logic alone. That's just not how science works.

Bryan doesn't seem particularly concerned with that. He seems to think that his academic, hypothetical philosophy can trump science. The problem with that is that science has a proven record of success. Philosophy does not. The problem with using logic alone to answer a question about nature is that there are always premises behind seemingly logical statements about nature. If those premises are wrong, then the logic collapses completely, and is utterly worthless. Which explains 99% of what Bryan writes.

75900[/snapback]

I would say it dispenses with 99% of what he writes.

[Bryan]

You can't derive reasonable answers about the shape and nature of reality itself with logic. What you're calling "logic" as it relates to a hypothetical "first cause" assumes things about the nature of reality. In other words, you're trying to figure out the nature of reality by assuming the nature of reality. That's circular reasoning, and therefore completely worthless.

76043[/snapback]

Just a quick illustration of what a colossal idiot you are (though wise to stay anonymous):

Yes, I assume things about reality. I assume that reality must be like A or like ~A (and I remain open to a description of ~A that is different from the one I suggest).

Reality can be only one or the other minus a third option. You apparently have no third option, so you came up with this exquisitely lame attack on the reasoning.

One of the options, as it happens, appears logically absurd, so I prefer the one that is not logically absurd. There is absolutely no way this reasoning is a vicious circle. That would occur if I simply assumed A was true without a probabilistic reductio ad absurdum of the other option.

So let me know any time when you've got that third option that escapes the dilemma. This accusation of circular reasoning just makes you look even more like an idiot.

[Guest Guest]

Just a quick illustration of what a colossal idiot you are (though wise to stay anonymous):

Yes, I assume things about reality.  I assume that reality must be like A or like ~A (and I remain open to a description of ~A that is different from the one I suggest).

Reality can be only one or the other minus a third option.  You apparently have no third option, so you came up with this exquisitely lame attack on the reasoning.

One of the options, as it happens, appears logically absurd, so I prefer the one that is not logically absurd.  There is absolutely no way this reasoning is a vicious circle.  That would occur if I simply assumed A was true without a probabilistic reductio ad absurdum of the other option.

So let me know any time when you've got that third option that escapes the dilemma.  This accusation of circular reasoning just makes you look even more like an idiot.

76542[/snapback]

You don't know what you're talking about. If it was that simple, science would "solve" cosmology with non-empirical "logic." The problems with that, as has already been observed, but you chose not to hear, are (1) that logic necessarily makes assumptions, and (2) that science has already proved seemingly logical assumptions to be false.

You can't apply linear logic to a non-linear universe. If you don't know the shape and nature of the universe, you don't have a frame of reference for applying what you call "logic" to it. The only way logic would enter the picture was after we understood what it was that logic was being applied to. Because we still don't know that, we can't use "logic" to figure out what we simply don't know.

[Guest Guest]

Just a quick illustration of what a colossal idiot you are (though wise to stay anonymous):

Yes, I assume things about reality.  I assume that reality must be like A or like ~A (and I remain open to a description of ~A that is different from the one I suggest).

Reality can be only one or the other minus a third option.  You apparently have no third option, so you came up with this exquisitely lame attack on the reasoning.

One of the options, as it happens, appears logically absurd, so I prefer the one that is not logically absurd.  There is absolutely no way this reasoning is a vicious circle.  That would occur if I simply assumed A was true without a probabilistic reductio ad absurdum of the other option.

So let me know any time when you've got that third option that escapes the dilemma.  This accusation of circular reasoning just makes you look even more like an idiot.

76542[/snapback]

Quick illustration, my ass. You can't address the argument, and even you, with your colossal stubbornness, know it.

Either you're not paying attention or you're so intent to coming out with the answer you want that you're ignoring everything else. The arguments, which you can't address intelligently and rationally, make perfect sense.

Your argument has to do with first causes. The problem with your argument is that we can't make any reliable statements about hypothetical "first causes". The reasons are as follows.

Obviously, we can't make the argument empirically because we have no data base. We have never observed a first cause, or if we have, we have no means of identifying it as such. Once you argue, as you have, that there's a dilemma, you have admitted that both logic and empiricism are useless and/or inapplicable.

More fundamentally, your argument fails because you can't support its assumptions. On the contrary, modern physics disproves them qua assumptions. Arguments about physical (cosmological) causation assume things about time and space. All such assumptions are completely worthless and unfounded, at present, because our best science tells us that they do not apply.

The question was posed, for example: What are black holes. Fact is, we don't know. Empirical science tells us they're "there," but in the context of a black hole, where and when is "there?" We can't answer that, and therefore we cannot say that everything can be put into time and space as we understand them.

The solution to this is not to return to centuries-old philosophical guesses and ramblings about the origins of things, but to continue to use science to discover more and more about the universe and the nature of things. Bryan, your arguments are hundreds of years old. Modern physics has completely demolished them.

In essence, it's really a very simple point. There are things about the universe and about reality that we don't understand, including "the ultimate origins of reality," if that way of putting it is even meaningful. Bryan, can even you be so arrogant and so full of hubris as to deny such an obvious point?

[Guest 2smart4u]

Thousands of years ago, before people understood that thunder was an interaction between hot and cold air in the atmosphere, primitive people explained thunder by saying there must be a thunder god and he must be angry. Today, if Aunt Millie suddenly and inexplicably goes into remission from her cancer, primitive-thinking people still say God must have cured her. They wouldn't say that if Aunt Millie's tumor had gradually shrunk after radiation therapy, but whenever something happens that they cannot explain, some people say "God must have done it." Using "God" as an explanation for things people don't understand is called "God in the gaps."

In post 464, Bryan accuses someone of applying "atheism of the gaps." That was in response to this statement from post 462: "You don't know that either of them is even possible according to fundamental laws of reality, whatever those might be. The truth may be something completely outside your earth-bound philosophical guesswork; it might a reality of which you cannot even conceive because you don't have the mental framework for it."

That writer, in turn, was commenting on Bryan's convoluted statement that ". . . a first cause that arises uncaused at some moment in time does not assist the picture of reality any better than an eternal first cause . . ."

To straighten that mess out, let's review, in English this time. Bryan was proposing two possibilities: (1) a first cause that arises uncaused at some moment in time and (2) an eternal first cause. The writer in post 462 correctly observed that we don't know whether either of those things is possible. In response, Bryan then accused the other writer of "atheism of the gaps."

Bryan either doesn't know what he's talking about or doesn't care what he writes. The writer of post 462 was referring to negative atheism, which means that the person says, in substance, "I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence that a god exists." There's no such thing as "atheism in the gaps" with that kind of atheism because it isn't proposing to explain anything. It's an epistemological statement, not a claim about the ultimate nature of reality or the ultimate origins of things.

The same is true of the writer's comment that we have no knowledge whether a first cause is consistent with nature and reality, regardless whether it arose "at some moment in time" or was eternal. That's not atheism in the gaps. It's just an observation, and a correct one, about the limits of human knowledge.

Apparently Bryan doesn't think those limits apply to him, but they do. His arrogance in assuming that he can answer once and for all the questions that people far more intelligent and far more educated than he have been pondering over for centuries, with not a hint of success in sight, is stunning.

Of course logic isn't a sufficient basis for a scientific conclusion (theory). It never has been. Science has always been an interplay between theory (which includes, but is not limited to logic) and empiricism. The observation has been made repeatedly that Bryan has no frame of reference for his conclusions. That observation is correct. Scientists think logically, but a scientific theory is never limited to logic alone. That's just not how science works.

Bryan doesn't seem particularly concerned with that. He seems to think that his academic, hypothetical philosophy can trump science. The problem with that is that science has a proven record of success. Philosophy does not. The problem with using logic alone to answer a question about nature is that there are always premises behind seemingly logical statements about nature. If those premises are wrong, then the logic collapses completely, and is utterly worthless. Which explains 99% of what Bryan writes.

75900[/snapback]

Here's a boy that needs a girlfriend. Strife, you available ?