David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[Guest 2smart4u]

Bryan is a rigid authoritarian with an agenda. He will use any means to promote that agenda, and he cares not one bit how illogical or dishonest his arguments are. Trying to have a discussion with him is like talking to a wall. The only value in any response is to educate others. Some of these posts do it very well.

What's amazing is how elementary Bryan's errors of logic and reason are. He is very adept at dresssing up nonsense in fine-sounding language, but it's still nonsense. It blows the mind that he really thinks (or at least insists) that the secrets of reality can be uncovered through philosophy. If that was true, we would have known everything there was to know a long time ago. And if you tell him anything --- like pointing out the differences between philosophy and science --- he just ignores it.

Very few people in our society really understand science. To me, that is the main value of these posts.

77613[/snapback]

I almost fell off my chair laughing at this one. The classic "pot calling the

kettle black". What's even as funny is Paul doesn't see himself in his post.

How's life up in that Ivory Tower, Paulie Boy.

[Guest Guest]

I haven't claimed that the secrets of reality can be uncovered through philosophy.  Rather, I affirmed that I was willing to try to understand reality in terms of reason (of which philosophy is a part) in contrast to a "Guest" who proposed as valuable a completely undefined third option as the solution to a logical dilemma.

I haven't ignored the attempt to point out "differences between philosophy and science." 

77705[/snapback]

Yes you did. You do it all the time, every time you want to dress up your religious agenda and call it science. In fact, you just did it again.

You argued that you can assess the probabilities of the existence of a conscious first cause through reason alone. So you have made the claim. It is thoroughly anti-scientific, and although I didn't read your link to Einstein's philosophy of science, I'll bet nothing like that is in there. I'm also willing to bet that there's nothing in there about sentient rocks or specific military-service genes.

What you're doing only works if we don't read what you write. Unfortunately for us, we did.

[Guest Guest]

LaClair shows no evidence of understanding science, from his failure to update his understanding of the big bang to his failure to properly begin to comprehend the relationship between philosophy and science.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

77705[/snapback]

Let's unravel Bryan's latest push for a theistic interpretation of reality. What Bryan is calling an "update" in science in fact has not displaced cosmological singularity at all. On the contrary, it is just one of many ways of looking at what we know.

Is it a good and scientific way? No. It is being pushed not by evidence, but by a theological agenda. See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gre...orzo/kalam.html for a good (by no means authoritative) discussion of this attempt to replace singularity theory.

Bryan is doing what rigid, authoritarian right-wingers do all the time: making a statement, declaring it unassailably true, and insisting that anyone who does not agree is ignorant. The problem, as usual, is that Bryan is just making stuff up, another hallmark of his strand of "thinking." He's not arguing science or even legitimate philosophy. He's just pushing his religion. Predictably, he has no problem with Paszkiewicz doing the same thing.

This thread of the discussion began with Bryan's attempt to defend Paszkiewicz's in-class remark that the big bang says nothing exploded and became the universe. Before we even get to the question whether that is a view any credible scientists are advancing, let's take note of the fact that even if Paszkiewicz had stated the matter correctly, he didn't do it to teach anything. He did it to promote his religious agenda. The way he said it, he was implying - and explicitly said - that scientists don't know what they're doing, and that this is obvious with the use of just a little common sense. However, the fact is that scientists do know what they're doing, far better at least than this ignorant doofus of a history (or it is a science?) teacher. Responsible and thoughtful people can't and wouldn't just ignore the pedagogical method. Paszkiewicz was making fun of science. Educationally, that's unforgivable, especially coming from someone who knows practically nothing about science (see, for example "dinosaurs on Noah's ark).

So what about the Big Bang theory? Well, scientists derived this theory from their observations about the rate of expansion of the universe. Looking at that, they calculated that the known matter in the universe would all have originated at a single point approximately 14.5 billion years ago. Hypothetically/theoretically, that collection of extremely dense matter (the singularity) "exploded" (a poor term to be sure, but perhaps the best single word we have to describe a most remarkable event), creating the universe as we know it. Succinctly stated, the argument is this (from the article linked above):

Big Bang cosmology is based on Einstein's theory of general relativity which states that the curvature of space time is dictated by the density of matter in the universe. The universe, if sufficiently dense, will curve to a point at which all space time paths converge, thus constituting the beginning of spacetime itself. According to the Friedman solutions to Einstein's equations, our universe possesses an isotropic and homogeneous density that is expanding at a successively slower rate. The further one travels into the past, the greater the rate of expansion becomes until one reaches a point at which the curvature and density of the universe is infinite and the radius is zero.

It is this point which is referred to by physicists as the initial cosmological singularity. This singularity is a point at which all the matter of our universe is compressed in an instant of one dimensional space. It is an endpoint without causal or temporal antecedents, existing as a literal border of space time. As a consequence of its inability to be described within the conventions of classical spacetime relations, the singularity is a point at which all the known laws of physics break down. As a consequence of its lawlessness, the singularity is inherently unpredictable, any configuration of particle emissions just as likely as any other. The explosion of this singularity into the present expansionary phase of the universe is what is referred to as the Big Bang.

Well, OK, but if we then think about the implications of this, we have to ask other questions about time, space (space-time) and causation. The problem is that once we have "traced" the universe back 14.5 billion years ago, we've run into the wall - we don't know what to say next. That was Einstein's objection, but in the end he couldn't successfully refute the Big Bang, even though he tried very hard to do it.

So, did extremely dense matter "explode?" Well, if time and space didn't exist, how could there have been anything to explode? So far so good, because we're asking questions based on the data, i.e., we're thinking scientifically. That's all perfectly respectable, because in the absence of knowledge we are forced to begin the next step via conjecture. By "playing" with the theories per the scientific method, we can use theories to advance science; so that even if they're wrong, they are valuable in leading us to discover how and maybe why they are wrong. Then we can take the next step. That's science.

Along come Craig (see the linked article) and Bryan, and say, ah yes! we can deduce from this that the universe had a conscious creator. Scientifically, that's not OK, because at that point we're no longer doing science. We're just engaging in wishful thinking, and not in a way or about anything to which we can apply science. Essentially, scientific conjectures are educated guesses about some aspect of reality. To that extent, Bryan's argument can be defended, but only to the extent that nothing that hasn't been conclusively disproved is ever off the table.

Where Bryan's argument (and Craig's) cannot be defended is in putting a conscious first cause on the same table with scientific approaches to the problem. The foundation of the Kalam cosmological argument (defended by Bryan and Craig) is not the data, but a mere wish. It's no different than saying that the universe was created by the same cow who made moons out of green cheese --- which is why Bryan keeps coming back to arguments like that (moons of cheese, sentient rocks, etc.): he doesn't understand the difference. He doesn't understand that science is a method, not just a collection of statements, arguments and theories. To him, every fancy (that he likes) is part of science. But that's just not how science works. If it did, scientists would be running down every blind alley, never giving an appropriate amount of attention to the possibilities that show scientific promise, but focusing instead on wishes.

Science doeesn't work that way. It can't. It would spend too much time chasing down blind alleys that lead nowhere. Scientists select the conjectures they choose to explore. They do it based on the existing evidence and a scientist's sense of where each conjecture might lead. By playing (intellectually and, if possible, empirically) with the various conjectures, scientists take science to one next step after another. Perhaps there's a kindergartener somewhere in Nebraska who will make the next paradigm-changing cosmological breakthrough. If so, he's going to do it by thinking like a scientist, not by thinking like Bryan, Kalam or Craig. That's how science advances.

So why can't the same openness be applied to a hypothetical conscious first cause? Well, you can try, but the central problems with it are (1) it's a blind alley scientifically and (2) it's not based on the science we have; instead, it's based on the longstanding inclination to personify an insensate universe. Simply put, it's not science. That's why Bryan has to try to defend it by "reason" alone. He doesn't make any empirical statements to defend it because he can't. There aren't any.

An educator in the 21st century in the USA who plays that game isn't teaching. He's preaching. The fact that he doesn't know the difference only makes matters worse.

There, Bryan, now it has been addressed. What are you going to say now: "But LaClair didn't do it?"

By the way, the twelve questions you have been asked go directly to the heart of the matter. Which is why you're not answering any of them in the context of this discussion. You can't.

[Guest Guest]

LaClair shows no evidence of understanding science, from his failure to update his understanding of the big bang to his failure to properly begin to comprehend the relationship between philosophy and science.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

77705[/snapback]

Just to get some idea of the kinds of issues that scientists are addressing, see: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0505/0505032v1.pdf

[Bryan]

Let's unravel Bryan's latest push for a theistic interpretation of reality. What Bryan is calling an "update" in science in fact has not displaced cosmological singularity at all.

Wow. Two straw men at once.

1) I referred to an update to Paul's view of the Big Bang, for it was the LaClair's who claimed that Paszkiewicz misrepresented the Big Bang by saying that it teaches the universe arising from nothing. Paszkiewicz was right, LaClair was wrong. LaClair still won't own up to it. Understanding the Big Bang to refer to a universe from nothing is, in fact, the understanding of the Big Bang that higher level science instructors expect from high school students.

2) There is no need for a Big Bang from nothing to "displace" a cosmological singularity since understanding the Big Bang to teach creation from nothing continues to involve the idea of a cosmological singularity.

http://colloquia.physics.cornell.edu/Howuniversebegan.pdf

See page 50.

On the contrary, it is just one of many ways of looking at what we know.

What are the other ways of looking at what we know?

Is it a good and scientific way? No. It is being pushed not by evidence, but by a theological agenda. See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gre...orzo/kalam.html for a good (by no means authoritative) discussion of this attempt to replace singularity theory.

Is that the article you meant to link? Because it doesn't say what you say it says, AFAICT. All it does is amateurishly try to refute William Lane Craig's version of the Kalam argument.

Bryan is doing what rigid, authoritarian right-wingers do all the time: making a statement, declaring it unassailably true, and insisting that anyone who does not agree is ignorant.

You think Paul LaClair will blush because you're borrowing his vocabulary? What a good little clone you are!

It's the same old story. I don't insist that anyone is ignorant. I provide the facts, and sometimes they prove that others are ignorant.

The problem, as usual, is that Bryan is just making stuff up, another hallmark of his strand of "thinking."

What am I making up, exactly?

He's not arguing science or even legitimate philosophy. He's just pushing his religion. Predictably, he has no problem with Paszkiewicz doing the same thing.

Note that there is no attempt at all by this "Guest" to back up the claim. There is no attempt to deal with the arguments--they just get dismissed, and then "Guest" associates my behavior with the disdain he hopes people hold for Paszkiewicz.

Very much the style of a LaClair, if I do say so.

This thread of the discussion began with Bryan's attempt to defend Paszkiewicz's in-class remark that the big bang says nothing exploded and became the universe.

And, lest we forget, Matthew LaClair's helpful insistence (blissfully ignorant of what higher educators expect him to know of the Big Bang) that the universe merely came from "very dense matter" (say it twice to prove it, like Matthew does).

Before we even get to the question whether that is a view any credible scientists are advancing, let's take note of the fact that even if Paszkiewicz had stated the matter correctly, he didn't do it to teach anything. He did it to promote his religious agenda. The way he said it, he was implying - and explicitly said - that scientists don't know what they're doing, and that this is obvious with the use of just a little common sense.

Unlike the LaClair-clone, Paszkiewicz did not commit the fallacy of hasty generalization.

However, the fact is that scientists do know what they're doing, far better at least than this ignorant doofus of a history (or it is a science?) teacher. Responsible and thoughtful people can't and wouldn't just ignore the pedagogical method. Paszkiewicz was making fun of science. Educationally, that's unforgivable, especially coming from someone who knows practically nothing about science (see, for example "dinosaurs on Noah's ark).

So, if a scientist says it came from nothing, believe it. After all, it's a scientist we're talking about!

So what about the Big Bang theory? Well, scientists derived this theory from their observations about the rate of expansion of the universe. Looking at that, they calculated that the known matter in the universe would all have originated at a single point approximately 14.5 billion years ago. Hypothetically/theoretically, that collection of extremely dense matter (the singularity) "exploded" (a poor term to be sure, but perhaps the best single word we have to describe a most remarkable event), creating the universe as we know it. Succinctly stated, the argument is this (from the article linked above):

Big Bang cosmology is based on Einstein's theory of general relativity which states that the curvature of space time is dictated by the density of matter in the universe. The universe, if sufficiently dense, will curve to a point at which all space time paths converge, thus constituting the beginning of spacetime itself. According to the Friedman solutions to Einstein's equations, our universe possesses an isotropic and homogeneous density that is expanding at a successively slower rate. The further one travels into the past, the greater the rate of expansion becomes until one reaches a point at which the curvature and density of the universe is infinite and the radius is zero.

It is this point which is referred to by physicists as the initial cosmological singularity. This singularity is a point at which all the matter of our universe is compressed in an instant of one dimensional space. It is an endpoint without causal or temporal antecedents, existing as a literal border of space time. As a consequence of its inability to be described within the conventions of classical spacetime relations, the singularity is a point at which all the known laws of physics break down. As a consequence of its lawlessness, the singularity is inherently unpredictable, any configuration of particle emissions just as likely as any other. The explosion of this singularity into the present expansionary phase of the universe is what is referred to as the Big Bang.

Well, OK, but if we then think about the implications of this, we have to ask other questions about time, space (space-time) and causation. The problem is that once we have "traced" the universe back 14.5 billion years ago, we've run into the wall - we don't know what to say next. That was Einstein's objection, but in the end he couldn't successfully refute the Big Bang, even though he tried very hard to do it.

So, did extremely dense matter "explode?" Well, if time and space didn't exist, how could there have been anything to explode? So far so good, because we're asking questions based on the data, i.e., we're thinking scientifically. That's all perfectly respectable, because in the absence of knowledge we are forced to begin the next step via conjecture. By "playing" with the theories per the scientific method, we can use theories to advance science; so that even if they're wrong, they are valuable in leading us to discover how and maybe why they are wrong. Then we can take the next step. That's science.

Apparently somebody didn't read very deeply into Einstein's objections.

Along come Craig (see the linked article) and Bryan, and say, ah yes! we can deduce from this that the universe had a conscious creator.

A misrepresentation typical of Paul LaClair, here, for neither Craig nor I attempt a logical deduction of the existence of a conscious creator.

Scientifically, that's not OK, because at that point we're no longer doing science.

Perhaps the LaClair clone should think about what science can be done once the laws of causation break down prior to the Planck time.

We're just engaging in wishful thinking, and not in a way or about anything to which we can apply science. Essentially, scientific conjectures are educated guesses about some aspect of reality. To that extent, Bryan's argument can be defended, but only to the extent that nothing that hasn't been conclusively disproved is ever off the table.

What is a "scientific conjecture" where we can only engage in "wishful thinking"?

Where Bryan's argument (and Craig's) cannot be defended is in putting a conscious first cause on the same table with scientific approaches to the problem.

In what sense is the conscious first cause being put on the same table with scientific approaches to the problem? Where's the line of demarcation between "scientific conjecture" (about a state where laws of causation have broken down) and wishful thinking?

Nice bit of LaClairian doubletalk, if you ask me. I doubt we'll get an explanation.

The foundation of the Kalam cosmological argument (defended by Bryan and Craig) is not the data, but a mere wish. It's no different than saying that the universe was created by the same cow who made moons out of green cheese --- which is why Bryan keeps coming back to arguments like that (moons of cheese, sentient rocks, etc.): he doesn't understand the difference.

What a heap of baloney. Scientists claim that the universe was once a singularity, but cannot explain what could have produced inflation from the singularity. Their work is cut out for them, given that it is admitted that the laws of causation break down.

The reply above is empty mockery, certainly in the LaClair tradition, and does suggest ignorance on the part of the one who wrote it.

He doesn't understand that science is a method, not just a collection of statements, arguments and theories. To him, every fancy (that he likes) is part of science.

Another claim that will never be supported with evidence ...

<cut out a heap o' similar blather>

So why can't the same openness be applied to a hypothetical conscious first cause? Well, you can try, but the central problems with it are (1) it's a blind alley scientifically and (2) it's not based on the science we have; instead, it's based on the longstanding inclination to personify an insensate universe.

A real scientist wouldn't assume an insensate universe.

Simply put, it's not science. That's why Bryan has to try to defend it by "reason" alone. He doesn't make any empirical statements to defend it because he can't. There aren't any.

There never will be any, given the presuppositions of science. This LaClair clone displays precisely the same misconceptions about science that the real LaClair manifests. You're supposed to pay attention to the "scientific conjecture" (whatever that is) about a time when causation is broken down. The guy has no idea how to give a coherent account of what he has attempted to describe.

An educator in the 21st century in the USA who plays that game isn't teaching. He's preaching. The fact that he doesn't know the difference only makes matters worse.

There, Bryan, now it has been addressed. What are you going to say now: "But LaClair didn't do it?"

No, I wouldn't say that. There's a better than 25% chance that a LaClair composed the post. Certainly it bears the earmarks of LaClairian foolishness.

By the way, the twelve questions you have been asked go directly to the heart of the matter. Which is why you're not answering any of them in the context of this discussion. You can't.

77774[/snapback]

I'll take your word that I can't, since I'm giving that worn-out tactic of distraction all the attention it deserves: none.

But I'll tell you what. You get Paul LaClair to go back and answer half of the questions of mine that he has dodged over the past months and I'll think about engaging the digression.

[Guest Guest]

Let's unravel Bryan's latest push for a theistic interpretation of reality. What Bryan is calling an "update" in science in fact has not displaced cosmological singularity at all. On the contrary, it is just one of many ways of looking at what we know.

Is it a good and scientific way? No. It is being pushed not by evidence, but by a theological agenda. See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gre...orzo/kalam.html for a good (by no means authoritative) discussion of this attempt to replace singularity theory.

Bryan is doing what rigid, authoritarian right-wingers do all the time: making a statement, declaring it unassailably true, and insisting that anyone who does not agree is ignorant. The problem, as usual, is that Bryan is just making stuff up, another hallmark of his strand of "thinking." He's not arguing science or even legitimate philosophy. He's just pushing his religion. Predictably, he has no problem with Paszkiewicz doing the same thing.

This thread of the discussion began with Bryan's attempt to defend Paszkiewicz's in-class remark that the big bang says nothing exploded and became the universe. Before we even get to the question whether that is a view any credible scientists are advancing, let's take note of the fact that even if Paszkiewicz had stated the matter correctly, he didn't do it to teach anything. He did it to promote his religious agenda. The way he said it, he was implying - and explicitly said - that scientists don't know what they're doing, and that this is obvious with the use of just a little common sense. However, the fact is that scientists do know what they're doing, far better at least than this ignorant doofus of a history (or it is a science?) teacher. Responsible and thoughtful people can't and wouldn't just ignore the pedagogical method. Paszkiewicz was making fun of science. Educationally, that's unforgivable, especially coming from someone who knows practically nothing about science (see, for example "dinosaurs on Noah's ark).

So what about the Big Bang theory? Well, scientists derived this theory from their observations about the rate of expansion of the universe. Looking at that, they calculated that the known matter in the universe would all have originated at a single point approximately 14.5 billion years ago. Hypothetically/theoretically, that collection of extremely dense matter (the singularity) "exploded" (a poor term to be sure, but perhaps the best single word we have to describe a most remarkable event), creating the universe as we know it. Succinctly stated, the argument is this (from the article linked above):

Big Bang cosmology is based on Einstein's theory of general relativity which states that the curvature of space time is dictated by the density of matter in the universe. The universe, if sufficiently dense, will curve to a point at which all space time paths converge, thus constituting the beginning of spacetime itself. According to the Friedman solutions to Einstein's equations, our universe possesses an isotropic and homogeneous density that is expanding at a successively slower rate. The further one travels into the past, the greater the rate of expansion becomes until one reaches a point at which the curvature and density of the universe is infinite and the radius is zero.

It is this point which is referred to by physicists as the initial cosmological singularity. This singularity is a point at which all the matter of our universe is compressed in an instant of one dimensional space. It is an endpoint without causal or temporal antecedents, existing as a literal border of space time. As a consequence of its inability to be described within the conventions of classical spacetime relations, the singularity is a point at which all the known laws of physics break down. As a consequence of its lawlessness, the singularity is inherently unpredictable, any configuration of particle emissions just as likely as any other. The explosion of this singularity into the present expansionary phase of the universe is what is referred to as the Big Bang.

Well, OK, but if we then think about the implications of this, we have to ask other questions about time, space (space-time) and causation. The problem is that once we have "traced" the universe back 14.5 billion years ago, we've run into the wall - we don't know what to say next. That was Einstein's objection, but in the end he couldn't successfully refute the Big Bang, even though he tried very hard to do it.

So, did extremely dense matter "explode?" Well, if time and space didn't exist, how could there have been anything to explode? So far so good, because we're asking questions based on the data, i.e., we're thinking scientifically. That's all perfectly respectable, because in the absence of knowledge we are forced to begin the next step via conjecture. By "playing" with the theories per the scientific method, we can use theories to advance science; so that even if they're wrong, they are valuable in leading us to discover how and maybe why they are wrong. Then we can take the next step. That's science.

Along come Craig (see the linked article) and Bryan, and say, ah yes! we can deduce from this that the universe had a conscious creator. Scientifically, that's not OK, because at that point we're no longer doing science. We're just engaging in wishful thinking, and not in a way or about anything to which we can apply science. Essentially, scientific conjectures are educated guesses about some aspect of reality. To that extent, Bryan's argument can be defended, but only to the extent that nothing that hasn't been conclusively disproved is ever off the table.

Where Bryan's argument (and Craig's) cannot be defended is in putting a conscious first cause on the same table with scientific approaches to the problem. The foundation of the Kalam cosmological argument (defended by Bryan and Craig) is not the data, but a mere wish. It's no different than saying that the universe was created by the same cow who made moons out of green cheese --- which is why Bryan keeps coming back to arguments like that (moons of cheese, sentient rocks, etc.): he doesn't understand the difference. He doesn't understand that science is a method, not just a collection of statements, arguments and theories. To him, every fancy (that he likes) is part of science. But that's just not how science works. If it did, scientists would be running down every blind alley, never giving an appropriate amount of attention to the possibilities that show scientific promise, but focusing instead on wishes.

Science doeesn't work that way. It can't. It would spend too much time chasing down blind alleys that lead nowhere. Scientists select the conjectures they choose to explore. They do it based on the existing evidence and a scientist's sense of where each conjecture might lead. By playing (intellectually and, if possible, empirically) with the various conjectures, scientists take science to one next step after another. Perhaps there's a kindergartener somewhere in Nebraska who will make the next paradigm-changing cosmological breakthrough. If so, he's going to do it by thinking like a scientist, not by thinking like Bryan, Kalam or Craig. That's how science advances.

So why can't the same openness be applied to a hypothetical conscious first cause? Well, you can try, but the central problems with it are (1) it's a blind alley scientifically and (2) it's not based on the science we have; instead, it's based on the longstanding inclination to personify an insensate universe. Simply put, it's not science. That's why Bryan has to try to defend it by "reason" alone. He doesn't make any empirical statements to defend it because he can't. There aren't any.

An educator in the 21st century in the USA who plays that game isn't teaching. He's preaching. The fact that he doesn't know the difference only makes matters worse.

There, Bryan, now it has been addressed. What are you going to say now: "But LaClair didn't do it?"

By the way, the twelve questions you have been asked go directly to the heart of the matter. Which is why you're not answering any of them in the context of this discussion. You can't.

77774[/snapback]

By the way, Kalam is not a person, but an Arabic word for theological philosophy. Kalam's cosmological argument is part of Islamic theism.

[Guest Guest]

Wow.  Two straw men at once.

1)  I referred to an update to Paul's view of the Big Bang, for it was the LaClair's who claimed that Paszkiewicz misrepresented the Big Bang by saying that it teaches the universe arising from nothing.  Paszkiewicz was right, LaClair was wrong.  LaClair still won't own up to it.  Understanding the Big Bang to refer to a universe from nothing is, in fact, the understanding of the Big Bang that higher level science instructors expect from high school students.

2)  There is no need for a Big Bang from nothing to "displace" a cosmological singularity since understanding the Big Bang to teach creation from nothing continues to involve the idea of a cosmological singularity.

http://colloquia.physics.cornell.edu/Howuniversebegan.pdf

See page 50.

What are the other ways of looking at what we know? 

Is that the article you meant to link?  Because it doesn't say what you say it says, AFAICT.  All it does is amateurishly try to refute William Lane Craig's version of the Kalam argument.

You think Paul LaClair will blush because you're borrowing his vocabulary?  What a good little clone you are!

It's the same old story.  I don't insist that anyone is ignorant.  I provide the facts, and sometimes they prove that others are ignorant.

What am I making up, exactly?

He's not arguing science or even legitimate philosophy. He's just pushing his religion. Predictably, he has no problem with Paszkiewicz doing the same thing.

Note that there is no attempt at all by this "Guest" to back up the claim.  There is no attempt to deal with the arguments--they just get dismissed, and then "Guest" associates my behavior with the disdain he hopes people hold for Paszkiewicz.

Very much the style of a LaClair, if I do say so.

This thread of the discussion began with Bryan's attempt to defend Paszkiewicz's in-class remark that the big bang says nothing exploded and became the universe.

And, lest we forget, Matthew LaClair's helpful insistence (blissfully ignorant of what higher educators expect him to know of the Big Bang) that the universe merely came from "very dense matter" (say it twice to prove it, like Matthew does).

Unlike the LaClair-clone, Paszkiewicz did not commit the fallacy of hasty generalization.

However, the fact is that scientists do know what they're doing, far better at least than this ignorant doofus of a history (or it is a science?) teacher. Responsible and thoughtful people can't and wouldn't just ignore the pedagogical method. Paszkiewicz was making fun of science. Educationally, that's unforgivable, especially coming from someone who knows practically nothing about science (see, for example "dinosaurs on Noah's ark).

So, if a scientist says it came from nothing, believe it.  After all, it's a scientist we're talking about!

So what about the Big Bang theory? Well, scientists derived this theory from their observations about the rate of expansion of the universe. Looking at that, they calculated that the known matter in the universe would all have originated at a single point approximately 14.5 billion years ago. Hypothetically/theoretically, that collection of extremely dense matter (the singularity) "exploded" (a poor term to be sure, but perhaps the best single word we have to describe a most remarkable event), creating the universe as we know it. Succinctly stated, the argument is this (from the article linked above):

Big Bang cosmology is based on Einstein's theory of general relativity which states that the curvature of space time is dictated by the density of matter in the universe. The universe, if sufficiently dense, will curve to a point at which all space time paths converge, thus constituting the beginning of spacetime itself. According to the Friedman solutions to Einstein's equations, our universe possesses an isotropic and homogeneous density that is expanding at a successively slower rate. The further one travels into the past, the greater the rate of expansion becomes until one reaches a point at which the curvature and density of the universe is infinite and the radius is zero.

It is this point which is referred to by physicists as the initial cosmological singularity. This singularity is a point at which all the matter of our universe is compressed in an instant of one dimensional space. It is an endpoint without causal or temporal antecedents, existing as a literal border of space time. As a consequence of its inability to be described within the conventions of classical spacetime relations, the singularity is a point at which all the known laws of physics break down. As a consequence of its lawlessness, the singularity is inherently unpredictable, any configuration of particle emissions just as likely as any other. The explosion of this singularity into the present expansionary phase of the universe is what is referred to as the Big Bang.

Well, OK, but if we then think about the implications of this, we have to ask other questions about time, space (space-time) and causation. The problem is that once we have "traced" the universe back 14.5 billion years ago, we've run into the wall - we don't know what to say next. That was Einstein's objection, but in the end he couldn't successfully refute the Big Bang, even though he tried very hard to do it.

So, did extremely dense matter "explode?" Well, if time and space didn't exist, how could there have been anything to explode? So far so good, because we're asking questions based on the data, i.e., we're thinking scientifically. That's all perfectly respectable, because in the absence of knowledge we are forced to begin the next step via conjecture. By "playing" with the theories per the scientific method, we can use theories to advance science; so that even if they're wrong, they are valuable in leading us to discover how and maybe why they are wrong. Then we can take the next step. That's science.

Apparently somebody didn't read very deeply into Einstein's objections.

Along come Craig (see the linked article) and Bryan, and say, ah yes! we can deduce from this that the universe had a conscious creator.

A misrepresentation typical of Paul LaClair, here, for neither Craig nor I attempt a logical deduction of the existence of a conscious creator.

Scientifically, that's not OK, because at that point we're no longer doing science.

Perhaps the LaClair clone should think about what science can be done once the laws of causation break down prior to the Planck time.

We're just engaging in wishful thinking, and not in a way or about anything to which we can apply science. Essentially, scientific conjectures are educated guesses about some aspect of reality. To that extent, Bryan's argument can be defended, but only to the extent that nothing that hasn't been conclusively disproved is ever off the table.

What is a "scientific conjecture" where we can only engage in "wishful thinking"?

Where Bryan's argument (and Craig's) cannot be defended is in putting a conscious first cause on the same table with scientific approaches to the problem.

In what sense is the conscious first cause being put on the same table with scientific approaches to the problem?  Where's the line of demarcation between "scientific conjecture" (about a state where laws of causation have broken down) and wishful thinking?

Nice bit of LaClairian doubletalk, if you ask me.  I doubt we'll get an explanation.

The foundation of the Kalam cosmological argument (defended by Bryan and Craig) is not the data, but a mere wish. It's no different than saying that the universe was created by the same cow who made moons out of green cheese --- which is why Bryan keeps coming back to arguments like that (moons of cheese, sentient rocks, etc.): he doesn't understand the difference.

What a heap of baloney.  Scientists claim that the universe was once a singularity, but cannot explain what could have produced inflation from the singularity.  Their work is cut out for them, given that it is admitted that the laws of causation break down.

The reply above is empty mockery, certainly in the LaClair tradition, and does suggest ignorance on the part of the one who wrote it.

He doesn't understand that science is a method, not just a collection of statements, arguments and theories. To him, every fancy (that he likes) is part of science.

Another claim that will never be supported with evidence ...

<cut out a heap o' similar blather>

So why can't the same openness be applied to a hypothetical conscious first cause? Well, you can try, but the central problems with it are (1) it's a blind alley scientifically and (2) it's not based on the science we have; instead, it's based on the longstanding inclination to personify an insensate universe.

A real scientist wouldn't assume an insensate universe. 

Simply put, it's not science. That's why Bryan has to try to defend it by "reason" alone. He doesn't make any empirical statements to defend it because he can't. There aren't any.

There never will be any, given the presuppositions of science.  This LaClair clone displays precisely the same misconceptions about science that the real LaClair manifests.  You're supposed to pay attention to the "scientific conjecture" (whatever that is) about a time when causation is broken down.  The guy has no idea how to give a coherent account of what he has attempted to describe.

An educator in the 21st century in the USA who plays that game isn't teaching. He's preaching. The fact that he doesn't know the difference only makes matters worse.

There, Bryan, now it has been addressed. What are you going to say now: "But LaClair didn't do it?"

No, I wouldn't say that.  There's a better than 25% chance that a LaClair composed the post.  Certainly it bears the earmarks of LaClairian foolishness.

By the way, the twelve questions you have been asked go directly to the heart of the matter. Which is why you're not answering any of them in the context of this discussion. You can't.

77774[/snapback]

I'll take your word that I can't, since I'm giving that worn-out tactic of distraction all the attention it deserves:  none.

But I'll tell you what.  You get Paul LaClair to go back and answer half of the questions of mine that he has dodged over the past months and I'll think about engaging the digression.

77797[/snapback]

Dude, you got spanked again.

[billydee4]

Oh God! Two more rants from Bryan. This is my favorite quote: "I don't believe that LaClair has ever successfully pointed out a fallacy or an untruth on my part." meaning, even though I've been proven wrong a thousand times, I'm still right.

I found this interesting article at crosswalk.com--I'm on their subscription list for some reason:

Student Sues History Teacher Over Anti-Christian Comments

The Christian Post reports that a lawsuit filed by a high school honors student and his parents against California history teacher James Corbett for anti-religion bias has ignited debate about the role of a teacher's convictions in the classroom. Chad Farnan, a sophomore, tape-recorded his Advanced Placement European history teacher's remarks, including: "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth" and "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies -- that's interfering with God's work." Farnan said, "It just shocks me that someone would think that and say that. He's my teacher, and I've lost respect for him. I'm offended." The 16-year-old and his parents are suing Corbett for violating the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from advancing religion or promoting hostility toward religion. "Corbett causes students who hold religious beliefs to feel like second-class citizens because of their protected religious expression, beliefs and conduct," stated an announcement by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a Christian legal group representing Farnan.

A christianist gets her feelings hurt and files a lawsuit. Now the Establishment Clause prohibits promoting hostility toward religion? What a crock! And remember, this is only the girl's side of the story.

[Guest Guest]

Wow.  Two straw men at once.

1)  I referred to an update to Paul's view of the Big Bang, for it was the LaClair's who claimed that Paszkiewicz misrepresented the Big Bang by saying that it teaches the universe arising from nothing.  Paszkiewicz was right, LaClair was wrong.  LaClair still won't own up to it.  Understanding the Big Bang to refer to a universe from nothing is, in fact, the understanding of the Big Bang that higher level science instructors expect from high school students.

2)  There is no need for a Big Bang from nothing to "displace" a cosmological singularity since understanding the Big Bang to teach creation from nothing continues to involve the idea of a cosmological singularity.

http://colloquia.physics.cornell.edu/Howuniversebegan.pdf

See page 50.

77797[/snapback]

Bryan doesn't understand what he's reading. (What a surprise.) "Nothing" means no classical space and time, which is exactly the problem with a supposed "first cause." See page 49.

Hawking and others continue to believe that a black hole consists of infinitely compressed matter, infinitely compressed in time. In fact, there was a program on this very subject on TV last evening. I forget which channel, but it will probably run again. Probably the science or history channel.

The other problem, which Bryan refuses to address, is that someone who is arguing for dinosaurs being on Noah's ark is "ignorant and scientifically illiterate," to quote the head of the Hayden Planetarium on Mr. Paszkiewicz's science "teaching." It's like putting a typewriter in a chicken yard next to a multiple choice exam. If a chicken passes by and happens to peck the "a" key . . . boy, what a smart chicken, just for answering the question at all! Like Bryan, Paszkiewicz gets his science from theologians, which is why it doesn't make any sense.

[Guest Guest]

He's not arguing science or even legitimate philosophy. He's just pushing his religion. Predictably, he has no problem with Paszkiewicz doing the same thing.

Note that there is no attempt at all by this "Guest" to back up the claim.

77797[/snapback]

Bryan, you're putting forth an argument that is named after a strand of Islamic thought, and was an attempt to explain the origins of things through Islamic theology. It's essentially the same argument the Christian apologist Thomas Aquinas made. In recent years, a man named Craig picked up the argument (which wasn't of any particular relevance to scientists, apparently) and tried to promote it on behalf of a theistic interpretation of the Big Bang. Do you really think we don't see your biases?

[Guest Kearny Christian]

Oh God! Two more rants from Bryan.  This is my favorite quote: "I don't believe that LaClair has ever successfully pointed out a fallacy or an untruth on my part." meaning, even though I've been proven wrong a thousand times, I'm still right. 

I found this interesting article at crosswalk.com--I'm on their subscription list for some reason:

Student Sues History Teacher Over Anti-Christian Comments

The Christian Post reports that a lawsuit filed by a high school honors student and his parents against California history teacher James Corbett for anti-religion bias has ignited debate about the role of a teacher's convictions in the classroom. Chad Farnan, a sophomore, tape-recorded his Advanced Placement European history teacher's remarks, including: "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth" and "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies -- that's interfering with God's work." Farnan said, "It just shocks me that someone would think that and say that. He's my teacher, and I've lost respect for him. I'm offended." The 16-year-old and his parents are suing Corbett for violating the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from advancing religion or promoting hostility toward religion. "Corbett causes students who hold religious beliefs to feel like second-class citizens because of their protected religious expression, beliefs and conduct," stated an announcement by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a Christian legal group representing Farnan.

A christianist gets her feelings hurt and files a lawsuit.  Now the Establishment Clause prohibits promoting hostility toward religion?  What a crock!  And remember, this is only the girl's side of the story.

77827[/snapback]

The conversation was taped, dummy. Fire the retarded atheist.

[Guest Guest]

(1) So, if a scientist says it came from nothing, believe it. After all, it's a scientist we're talking about!

(2) Apparently somebody didn't read very deeply into Einstein's objections.

(3) Perhaps the LaClair clone should think about what science can be done once the laws of causation break down prior to the Planck time.

(4) What is a "scientific conjecture" where we can only engage in "wishful thinking"?

(5) In what sense is the conscious first cause being put on the same table with scientific approaches to the problem? Where's the line of demarcation between "scientific conjecture" (about a state where laws of causation have broken down) and wishful thinking?

(6) What a heap of baloney. Scientists claim that the universe was once a singularity, but cannot explain what could have produced inflation from the singularity. Their work is cut out for them, given that it is admitted that the laws of causation break down.

77797[/snapback]

These are statements that would only be made by someone who does not understand science. Let's consider them in turn.

(1) Of course not. The scientific approach is to test the proposition with mathematical and other theoretical models, and then when scientist(s) think they are at a critical point, they re-evaluate the existing data or collect additional data based on the predictions of the model. They may confirm their models, discredit them or demolish them completely; but even in that last scenario, they gain additional information from having worked with that model, and are then prepared to take the next step forward. Theology/philosophy can make no such claims. Scientists argue their cases passionately, but they don't claim that their theories are written in stone. Those are among the fundamental differences between science and theology/philosophy.

(2) Don't see how that follows, but whether it does or not, it's not the point. Einstein's objections to quantum physics are not encased in wax or written in stone. They were the dynamic, evolving, provisional conclusions of one brilliant scientist who did most of his work in the first half of the 20th century, made some breathtaking discoveries and was occasionally wrong. His only objection to that description would be that it is too flattering. Einstein struggled for years trying to disprove quantum physics, and was never able to do it. Toward the end of his life, his attitudes on the subject softened. Or consider Stephen Hawking. He spent 30 years insisting on a major scientific principle, only to admit just a few years ago that he was wrong. If Einstein was alive today, he would have more than fifty years' worth of additional research and theorizing to consider. The point is, he would consider it. He wouldn't be likely to keep insisting on his suppositions in the face of new information.

(3-6) Good questions, though they weren't intended that way. They are exactly the kinds of questions scientists are thinking about every day, all the time. The difference, however, between these scientists and Bryan/Craig is that the scientists are workinig with sophisticated mathematical models, trying to get at the truth in the only reliable way we can. If they hadn't accomplished anything, Bryan's dismissive attitude might be justified, but my God (so to speak), look at the tremendous advances in science in recent years. Given that history, Bryan's attitude is just stubbornness and arrogance.

Of course scientists' work is cut out for them. Of course they can't explain it all - yet. That is why they continue to work on it. That is why the recent discovery that there appears to be a black hole at the center of every galaxy is so important. Theoretically, that changes everything, and as scientists continue to work with that new knowledge, they will find out by trial and error what models work and what models don't work. By so doing, they will discover more. That's how science works.

The line of demarcation is in the method. By working with observations from the Hubble telescope (as just one example) and theoretical models, scientists move ahead. The proof is in all the advances in science, which have sped up exponentially in our lifetimes. Many of these begin with conjectures, but in science conjecture is only the first step. Scientists then go forward and do their theorizing and their research, and by so doing have advanced the discipline and added to what we know about the universe. Your philosophy/theology does not do that, Bryan.

By contrast, people pushing ideas like "an uncaused first cause," with no research to support it, no mathematical or other model to explain it, and nothing behind it except their own arrogance in assuming that they can state what is most likely (when we know that the usual laws of physics break down in a black hole, at least) are going to be in the same position fifty years from now as they are today. And that is the same position as Aquinas was and all the other theologians were when they first came up with these ideas centuries ago. These ideas haven't added a single thing to our knowledge of the universe, the origins of things or much of anything else. By all appearances (and we're looking at a long history with these ideas), it's a dead end. Bryan, are you really so full of hubris that you think this can compete with modern science? Or are you just going to deny that that's what you said - again?

[Windy City Attorney]

Student Sues History Teacher Over Anti-Christian Comments

The Christian Post reports that a lawsuit filed by a high school honors student and his parents against California history teacher James Corbett for anti-religion bias has ignited debate about the role of a teacher's convictions in the classroom. Chad Farnan, a sophomore, tape-recorded his Advanced Placement European history teacher's remarks, including: "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth" and "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies -- that's interfering with God's work." Farnan said, "It just shocks me that someone would think that and say that. He's my teacher, and I've lost respect for him. I'm offended." The 16-year-old and his parents are suing Corbett for violating the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from advancing religion or promoting hostility toward religion. "Corbett causes students who hold religious beliefs to feel like second-class citizens because of their protected religious expression, beliefs and conduct," stated an announcement by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a Christian legal group representing Farnan.

A christianist gets her feelings hurt and files a lawsuit.  Now the Establishment Clause prohibits promoting hostility toward religion?  What a crock!  And remember, this is only the girl's side of the story.

77827[/snapback]

This was originally reported here:

http://www.ocregister.com/news/corbett-cap...7-teacher-court

And there's been another incident in North Dakota:

http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=13949

Now, someone who actually understands and cares about the Constitution would view both of these incidents AND Paskiewicz's in-class ramblings as equally violative even though (wait for it) the California incident involved a teacher criticizing Christianity. And all those "atheistic secular-humanist terrorist-loving America-destroying gay-marrying libruls" at groups like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State would agree. It is only the theocrats who would find some way that the Constitution prohibits what the California teacher did and allows what Paskiewicz and the North Dakota teacher did.

[Strife767]

This was originally reported here:

http://www.ocregister.com/news/corbett-cap...7-teacher-court

And there's been another incident in North Dakota:

http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=13949

Now, someone who actually understands and cares about the Constitution would view both of these incidents AND Paskiewicz's in-class ramblings as equally violative even though (wait for it) the California incident involved a teacher criticizing Christianity.  And all those "atheistic secular-humanist terrorist-loving America-destroying gay-marrying libruls" at groups like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State would agree.  It is only the theocrats who would find some way that the Constitution prohibits what the California teacher did and allows what Paskiewicz and the North Dakota teacher did.

77910[/snapback]

I want to hear THOSE recordings now, because that's really what eliminated the reasonable "some kid is exaggerating" possibility with the Paszkiewicz thing (considering that in both cases, it's only one student complaining).

[Guest Guest]

This was originally reported here:

http://www.ocregister.com/news/corbett-cap...7-teacher-court

And there's been another incident in North Dakota:

http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=13949

Now, someone who actually understands and cares about the Constitution would view both of these incidents AND Paskiewicz's in-class ramblings as equally violative even though (wait for it) the California incident involved a teacher criticizing Christianity.  And all those "atheistic secular-humanist terrorist-loving America-destroying gay-marrying libruls" at groups like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State would agree.  It is only the theocrats who would find some way that the Constitution prohibits what the California teacher did and allows what Paskiewicz and the North Dakota teacher did.

77910[/snapback]

Corbett was clearly wrong, essentially for the same reasons as Paszkiewicz (minus the butchery of science), but this particular comment does not cross any legal line. It's essentially a correct statement of the law:

"The Boy Scouts can't have it both ways. If they want to be an exclusive, Christian organization or an exclusive, God-fearing organization, then they can't receive any more support from the state, and shouldn't."

[Bryan]

Bryan doesn't understand what he's reading. (What a surprise.) "Nothing" means no classical space and time, which is exactly the problem with a supposed "first cause." See page 49.

It means a singularity with a cause (quantum fluctuation) if you were paying attention. You weren't, of course. You tried the tired technique of changing the subject (back to Kalam when Paul had brought up the Big Bang and his supposition that it starts with a singularity), and rely on derision.

The other problem, which Bryan refuses to address, is that someone who is arguing for dinosaurs being on Noah's ark is "ignorant and scientifically illiterate," to quote the head of the Hayden Planetarium on Mr. Paszkiewicz's science "teaching."

Your lies are similar to those of Paul LaClair.

Learn to use the search function.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=65707

It's like putting a typewriter in a chicken yard next to a multiple choice exam. If a chicken passes by and happens to peck the "a" key . . . boy, what a smart chicken, just for answering the question at all! Like Bryan, Paszkiewicz gets his science from theologians, which is why it doesn't make any sense.

77891[/snapback]

He knew the modern understanding of the Big Bang better than either LaClair, and taught a good lesson on scientific epistemology.

Not bad for a history teacher.

[Autonomous]

Oh God! Two more rants from Bryan.  This is my favorite quote: "I don't believe that LaClair has ever successfully pointed out a fallacy or an untruth on my part." meaning, even though I've been proven wrong a thousand times, I'm still right. 

I found this interesting article at crosswalk.com--I'm on their subscription list for some reason:

Student Sues History Teacher Over Anti-Christian Comments

The Christian Post reports that a lawsuit filed by a high school honors student and his parents against California history teacher James Corbett for anti-religion bias has ignited debate about the role of a teacher's convictions in the classroom. Chad Farnan, a sophomore, tape-recorded his Advanced Placement European history teacher's remarks, including: "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth" and "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies -- that's interfering with God's work." Farnan said, "It just shocks me that someone would think that and say that. He's my teacher, and I've lost respect for him. I'm offended." The 16-year-old and his parents are suing Corbett for violating the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from advancing religion or promoting hostility toward religion. "Corbett causes students who hold religious beliefs to feel like second-class citizens because of their protected religious expression, beliefs and conduct," stated an announcement by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a Christian legal group representing Farnan.

A christianist gets her feelings hurt and files a lawsuit.  Now the Establishment Clause prohibits promoting hostility toward religion?  What a crock!  And remember, this is only the girl's side of the story.

77827[/snapback]

Yes, the Establishment Clause should prohibit it. An anti-religion position is a religious opinion just as much as a religious position is. Secularism is not atheism and should not promote it.

[Guest Guest]

This was originally reported here:

http://www.ocregister.com/news/corbett-cap...7-teacher-court

And there's been another incident in North Dakota:

http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=13949

Now, someone who actually understands and cares about the Constitution would view both of these incidents AND Paskiewicz's in-class ramblings as equally violative even though (wait for it) the California incident involved a teacher criticizing Christianity.  And all those "atheistic secular-humanist terrorist-loving America-destroying gay-marrying libruls" at groups like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State would agree.  It is only the theocrats who would find some way that the Constitution prohibits what the California teacher did and allows what Paskiewicz and the North Dakota teacher did.

77910[/snapback]

How much do you want to bet that the case against Corbett goes nowhere?

[Guest Guest]

It's easy to accuse, but it never seems to get past that stage, strangely enough...

77644[/snapback]

Strawman.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE

He is very adept at dresssing up nonsense in fine-sounding language, but it's still nonsense.

For example?

77705[/snapback]

"So 'Guest' is apparently saying a first cause has nothing to do with causation, but he declines to explain how that can be since half the term is explicitly about causation." - Bryan, post 503 - fallacy of reification (of a word)

"The fact is the explanation 'Guest' offered provides no path out of the dilemma." - Bryan, post 503 - contradiction (by definition, there is no way out of a dilemma - see also fallacy of unwarranted assumption)

"That's not a diversion or anything." - Bryan, post 508 - diversion (Bryan refuses to address the questions. A recurrent theme in his writing is accusing others of what he does repeatedly.)

"Who said anything about laws of causation?" - Bryan, post 509 - contradiction - (The answer is: Bryan did. See post 503, as above.) See also, infra., Bryan, post 509: "The notion of a first cause has everything to do with causation." - again, contradiction

"The supposed 'laws of causation' have nothing to do with the dilemma. There is no law of causation at all that can get you away from the dilemma that there is either a first cause or an endless succession of causes (representing an eternal regress)." Bryan, post 509 - fallacy of unwarranted assumption (Bryan refuses to address the implications of modern science. It's the flat earth approach, dressed up in contemporary language.)

"That model still ends up in an infinite regress, so the dilemma remains intact. That's assuming that backward causation is logically consistent, which is by no means an uncontested point." Bryan, post 509 - contradiction (If a dilemma rests on an assumption, then it's not a dilemma, since disproving the assumption resolves it.) Also, contradiction.

"I'm not trying to escape the dilemma. I simply recommend one of the two options on the basis of reason." - Bryan, post 509 - contradiction (In a dilemma, neither option offers a solution.)

"On the other hand, a slightly modified law of causation appears to take care of the situation in terms of logical consistency: Everything that begins to exist has a cause." - Bryan, post 509 - This is called making stuff up. It carves out an exception to the rule that all things have a cause. "No problem," says Bryan, "let's just assume that the thing I want to believe in existed forever. I win! I win!"

I'd continue, but what's the point? There are enough fallacies, mis-statements, falsehoods, etc., in Bryan's writing to sink Noah's ark, with or without dinosaurs and sentient rocks on it.

[Strife767]

Strawman.

78008[/snapback]

What? Do you even know what a straw man argument is? I suggest you learn the meanings of terms before you use them.

P.S. Case in point: Paul has been accused of being a liar on this forum countless times, but every time Paul or someone else asks them to back the claim up, they shut up right away.

[Strife767]

How much do you want to bet that the case against Corbett goes nowhere?

78007[/snapback]

Since there are recordings in this case too, I'd be inclined to think that their contents will be the difference-maker. Wish I could hear them.

[Guest Guest]

How much do you want to bet that the case against Corbett goes nowhere?

78007[/snapback]

I wonder what remedy they are seeking. Is it possible that the matter was handled as badly as it was by the officials in Kearny? Possible, but . . . stay tuned.

[Guest Guest]

Learn to use the search function.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=65707

77977[/snapback]

Great, now Bryan is citing himself as the authority for his argument. Well, at least he's being honest this time.

[Guest Guest]

It means a singularity with a cause (quantum fluctuation) . . .

77977[/snapback]

In a universe that contains black holes, where the rules of physics as we know them break down, precisely what does that mean? What is the significance of the apparent resemblance of black holes and the singularity posited to have "exploded" to create the universe?