Ah ha! You can't explain X, therefore God!

[Learner]

No.

There's no need for agency when an elastic object impacts a hard surface. It bounces. Nobody needs to make it bounce.

Light switches don't flick themselves on and off.

Was going to say this on another thread but the formation of the ball itself for example is never explained . I am talking about the rules and regulations of all the forces and matter. Creationists have a "much better" proposition for the case for creation than the bigbang proposition etc. When we propose that the laws of the universe IS that evidence of creation.

 

[bilby]

No.

There's no need for agency when an elastic object impacts a hard surface. It bounces. Nobody needs to make it bounce.

Light switches don't flick themselves on and off.

Was going to say this on another thread but the formation of the ball itself for example is never explained . I am talking about the rules and regulations of all the forces and matter. Creationists have a "much better" proposition for the case for creation than the bigbang proposition etc. When we propose that the laws of the universe IS that evidence of creation.

No.

Your "explanation" entails assuming a whole bunch of stuff that is completely unevidenced. It's not so much an explanation as an additional set of complications, none of which are more help than harm in getting away from the inexplicable.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

No.

There's no need for agency when an elastic object impacts a hard surface. It bounces. Nobody needs to make it bounce.

Light switches don't flick themselves on and off.

Was going to say this on another thread but the formation of the ball itself for example is never explained . I am talking about the rules and regulations of all the forces and matter. Creationists have a "much better" proposition for the case for creation than the bigbang proposition etc. When we propose that the laws of the universe IS that evidence of creation.

And so God just exists. And is just Omnipotent. Omniscience. Just is, you see. Uhmmmm.. Special pleading here. Where is the evidence God exists?

 

[Lion IRC]

When we are talking about past-eternal Groundhog Day universes, or perpetual motion balls which simply keep on bouncing from one hard surface to another never losing elastic potential energy, or light switches that simply turn themselves on and off repeatedly for no reason, it's impossible to avoid the appearence of special pleading.

The claim that 'reality' exists is a special pleading brute fact claim.

But it's metaphysics what do you expect?

And isnt the atheist special pleading when they claim that there is no such thing as why questions - only how questions?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No.

There's no need for agency when an elastic object impacts a hard surface. It bounces. Nobody needs to make it bounce.

Light switches don't flick themselves on and off.

Was going to say this on another thread but the formation of the ball itself for example is never explained . I am talking about the rules and regulations of all the forces and matter. Creationists have a "much better" proposition for the case for creation than the bigbang proposition etc. When we propose that the laws of the universe IS that evidence of creation.

That's the problem. You guys see a ball bounce or a leaf fall to the ground and get all gaga about how wonderful this magic space creature must be. But you don't really have any evidence for the spaceman except a leaf. So anything and everything - by your argument - is evidence for your spaceman, even tuberculosis. Even lack of evidence is evidence because the spaceman is so mysterious, outside our spacetime.

Everything is evidence for one thing, and one thing is evidence for everything. This might be somehow comforting if it wasn't so asinine, though I can appreciate its simple appeal.

Why don't you just admit that the universe is doing this and declare the universe to be your magic spaceman?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When we are talking about past-eternal Groundhog Day universes, or perpetual motion balls which simply keep on bouncing from one hard surface to another never losing elastic potential energy...

How does the universe "lose" energy?

 

[Juma]

The claim that 'reality' exists is a special pleading brute fact claim.

No, it is simply a fact.

 

[bilby]

When we are talking about past-eternal Groundhog Day universes, or perpetual motion balls which simply keep on bouncing from one hard surface to another never losing elastic potential energy, or light switches that simply turn themselves on and off repeatedly for no reason, it's impossible to avoid the appearence of special pleading.

The claim that 'reality' exists is a special pleading brute fact claim.

But it's metaphysics what do you expect?

And isnt the atheist special pleading when they claim that there is no such thing as why questions - only how questions?

If you consider the assumption that the first law of thermodynamics will continue to apply when formulating an hypothesis to have the appearance of 'special pleading', and you are skeptical of the claim that reality exists on the same basis, then there really is no hope that you will ever understand anything.

But as you seem to be very happy with your internally inconsistent and at odds with reality (and therefore demonstrably wrong) beliefs, I guess you don't feel like being wrong is much of a problem.

You believe things without any support other than the untested word of others; and that's apparently good enough for you. You deride logic and reason, because they don't agree with your unchallenged beliefs. And yet you use the jargon of logic; Perhaps you really don't understand what 'Special Pleading' is, and imagine it to be a simple synonym for 'I disagree with you'?

Yours is a shithouse epistemology in my opinion; but as long as you don't try to apply it to anyone else's life, I guess it's only harmful to you, so knock yourself out.

 

[Lion IRC]

The claim that 'reality' exists is a special pleading brute fact claim.

No, it is simply a fact.

Is not - it's a claim, a belief.

 

[none]

No, it is simply a fact.

Is not.

you're dreaming

 

[Lion IRC]

The claim that the universe has always existed is likewise a belief.

 

[Juma]

No, it is simply a fact.

Is not - it's a claim, a belief.

Are you a solipsist?

 

[Lion IRC]

I claim that the so-called laws of physics are the result of design intent and that they are not necessarily eternal/perpetual.
So when Bilby asserts that the first law will always exist, I'm interested to know how/why zhe thinks that.

Surely it's questionable whether a moving object (a bouncing ball or a universe) can stop and then start moving again - in the opposite direction - over and over again without some mysterious 'hand of God' or dark energy to perpetuate it in order that it doesn't gradually slow down and come to a complete stop (heat death.)

 

[bilby]

The claim that the universe has always existed is likewise a belief.

Let us know if anyone makes such a claim.

- - - Updated - - -

I claim that the so-called laws of physics are the result of design intent and that they are not necessarily eternal/perpetual.
So when Bilby asserts that the first law will always exist, I'm interested to know how/why zhe thinks that.

Surely it's questionable whether a moving object (a bouncing ball or a universe) can stop and then start moving again - in the opposite direction - over and over again without some mysterious 'hand of God' or dark energy to perpetuate it in order that it doesn't gradually slow down and come to a complete stop (heat death.)

I never made any such claim.

You need to learn to read.

 

[Lion IRC]

Is not - it's a claim, a belief.

Are you a solipsist?

No, I'm a Baconian and whereas empirical evidence and verificationism might work in many mundane areas, metaphysics isn't one of them. Bacon understood that metaphysics is not conducive to logical positivism.

The non-theist can posit a past eternal universe in order to try and avoid an uncaused First Cause but that is a form of special pleading - not a properly basic belief.

 

[Lion IRC]

Let us know if anyone makes such a claim.

- - - Updated - - -

I claim that the so-called laws of physics are the result of design intent and that they are not necessarily eternal/perpetual.
So when Bilby asserts that the first law will always exist, I'm interested to know how/why zhe thinks that.

Surely it's questionable whether a moving object (a bouncing ball or a universe) can stop and then start moving again - in the opposite direction - over and over again without some mysterious 'hand of God' or dark energy to perpetuate it in order that it doesn't gradually slow down and come to a complete stop (heat death.)

I never made any such claim.

You need to learn to read.

Oh, if I have mistaken or misstated your position I apologise.
Do you or don't you hold that view about the first law and a perpetual universe?

 

[bilby]

Let us know if anyone makes such a claim.

- - - Updated - - -



I never made any such claim.

You need to learn to read.

Oh, if I have mistaken or misstated your position I apologise.
Do you or don't you hold that view about the first law and a perpetual universe?

It is one of many possibilities that you have failed to rule out.

There's no reason why anyone should accept your claims when you haven't even attempted to rule out other possibilities.

The hypothesis that everything was created by an intelligent entity is logically absurd - either the intelligence created itself from nothing, by means of intelligence that didn't yet exist; or it's not a part of 'everything', and therefore doesn't exist.

So while I don't know the answer to the question 'where did everything come from?', I do know that gods cannot be the answer.

However as there are many other possibilities that are not at odds with reason or logic, the explosion of the god hypothesis isn't a problem. The answer remains 'we don't yet know'; and I have provided an example of one possible answer that is consistent with logic, reason and observation. Further study may or may not rule it out too; My point is only that you have failed to eliminate a number of better hypotheses than the one you are claiming as fact.

 

[Lion IRC]

Are there any working models of a past eternal universe - which don't rely on magical quantum 'corrections'?

 

[bilby]

Are there any working models of a past eternal universe - which don't rely on magical quantum 'corrections'?

Simple conservation of mass/energy would seem to suffice, given that we have no models at all to describe the singularity.

It might not be right; But there's no basis to claim that it's wrong. As far as we know, the first law applies to all closed systems. In the absence of any evidence that the universe is at any stage an open system, or that the first law was at any point inapplicable, it would be a brave move to declare that it doesn't apply.

You seem to still be labouring under the misapprehension that in order for your answer to be proven wrong, it is necessary that the right answer be known. That's not the case.

I don't need to know the exact ratio of basalt to granite in moon rock to be able to refute the Stilton cheese hypothesis.

 

[Lion IRC]

You seem to still be labouring under the misapprehension that in order for your answer to be proven wrong, it is necessary that the right answer be known.

No - I do not think that.
I'm on record (repeatedly) as a staunch opponent of the idea that either side can claim to be the default truth unless and until someone proves otherwise.
My experience is mostly atheists/atheism claiming to be the default truth with zero burden of proof.

...It is one of many possibilities that you have failed to rule out.

I don't have to rule them out. They are completely irrelevant to me.

...There's no reason why anyone should accept your claims when you haven't even attempted to rule out other possibilities.

We're not trading possible ideas here.

If one idea is actually true and all others are just interesting 'possibilities' I'm not obligated to politely admit that those possibilities might be equally true out of some misguided, post-modern sense of fairplay.

Exchanging ideas is nice but this is a contest of ideas. Atheism versus Theism.

We can't both be right.