blurb

Holy Crap!
Pogue
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:37 am
Contact:

blurb

Post by Pogue » Mon Nov 21, 2016 5:05 am

The notion of ‘First cause’, an underlying assumption in Judeo-Christian tradition, purports to explain the origin of the cosmos in terms of ‘Supernatural creation’. The major fallacy inherent in this argument is that it attempts to explain the existence of natural phenomenon using a supernatural means. If someone were to ask me an arbitrary question about the natural world, they might say “How does an airplane take flight?”. I could potentially offer them two contrasting replies. The first one being: “Magic. It is controlled by god. Almighty god directs and controls the airplane’s motion.” The alternate answer is “The thrust from the engines pushing the plane forward exceeds the air resistance pulling it back thus creating a lift force enabling the plane to glide through the air.”
We must ask ourselves, which one of these answers provides a superior practical insight into the question? The first answer isn’t even really an explanation and offers no perspective on understanding aerodynamics, how to design a plane, or how to operate a plane. The latter question gives us a much more tangible foundation of ideas.


It must be said however that few people make the claim that god causes an airplane to glide. Although much broader in context, the question of genesis is fundamentally similar to the question about the airplane. They are both queries about physical reality and natural laws. Although few would dispute the response to the airplane query, many would dispute the natural evolution of the cosmos and would find it difficult to let go of the notion of ‘first cause’. To admit that the universe is not designed would be to admit that god does not exist, and to admit that, for some, would be to strip their belief system, identity, and way of life.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73016
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: blurb

Post by JimC » Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:09 am

Dennet and Dawkins said it best. Complex things arise via evolutionary processes from simpler things. To start with a being complex enough to create our universe is not an explanation; it has zero information content...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37956
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: blurb

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:53 am

We should guard against giving weight to the assumption that because phenomena are explainable their meanings are significant.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Pogue
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:37 am
Contact:

Re: blurb

Post by Pogue » Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:01 pm

Simple to complex or complex to simple, it depends on perspective.

Pogue
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:37 am
Contact:

Re: blurb

Post by Pogue » Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:02 pm

If determinism exists does that imply that the future already happened?

Pogue
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:37 am
Contact:

Re: blurb

Post by Pogue » Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:13 pm


User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: blurb

Post by Forty Two » Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:30 pm

JimC wrote:Dennet and Dawkins said it best. Complex things arise via evolutionary processes from simpler things. To start with a being complex enough to create our universe is not an explanation; it has zero information content...
I never thought this argument carried much wait. I think the underlying assumption, that a deity, in order to create a universe, must be really, really complex itself, is not really supported by anything. Since when do things that create other things have to be more complex than the things they create?

An argument I like better is that the First Cause argument fails of its own basic premise. The First Cause thing is based on the notion that everything that exists has a cause, and that since the universe exists it too must have a cause. That cause is god.

That fails, I think, because if you look at the things in the universe, they DON'T have "a" cause. Like planets, for example. They exist, but they weren't "made" by something. The things we know were "made" are not creations out of whole cloth. A car, for example, is not "created" by humans. It's just assembled from pieces we find laying around. Every atom in a car is just moved from one place to another until they are in the form of a car. Humans didn't "create" the car, except in the same sense that kid molds a play-doh ball into a play-doh car. So, cars and play-doh cars are just one point in a long series of changes in form that all the molecules have gone through.

So, it may be better to say - nothing that exists has a "cause", and therefore the universe doesn't have a cause. All the stuff that is now in the universe was just in a different form, and behaves in the way stuff behaves.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: blurb

Post by Forty Two » Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:30 pm

Pogue wrote:If determinism exists does that imply that the future already happened?
That depends on perspective.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: blurb

Post by Forty Two » Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:31 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:We should guard against giving weight to the assumption that because phenomena are explainable their meanings are significant.
Or, vice versa, for that matter. The religious often see great significance in things that apparently cannot be explained.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: blurb

Post by Hermit » Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:18 am

Pogue wrote:If determinism exists does that imply that the future already happened?
No.

And that's the long answer. If you want an even longer one, propose a reason why determinism would imply that the future already happened. I suspect it will involve equivocating inevitability and actuality.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37956
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: blurb

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:25 am

The emergent properties of a stochastic universe cannot and should not be confused for error-free fortune telling.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: blurb

Post by Scot Dutchy » Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:27 pm

Is this trolling by multi-threading?
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73016
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: blurb

Post by JimC » Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:14 pm

It is at least somewhat amusing.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: blurb

Post by Seth » Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:21 pm

JimC wrote:Dennet and Dawkins said it best. Complex things arise via evolutionary processes from simpler things. To start with a being complex enough to create our universe is not an explanation; it has zero information content...
It is arrogant hubris to presume that an explanation is required, and the assertion only has zero information content to the mentally deficient who are unable to see beyond their own limitations and prejudices...which certainly includes both Dennet and Dawkins, who are both severely limited in their intellectual capacity and open-mindedness.

In point of rational fact the assertion that it starts with a being complex enough to create our universe does not contain zero information content, it contains an INFINITE amount of information, which of course is too big and scary for small-minded nitwits like Dennet and Dawkins.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: blurb

Post by Feck » Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:12 pm

it contains an INFINITE amount of information, LMFAO YOU FUCKING MORON !
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests