thehomer:

You have things backwards. Natural laws are our representation of the processes. How do you know the laws of nature can physically be different?

Considering that I never said anything about physical differences, perhaps you should explain what you mean by the phrase "physically different". What does it mean to say that something is physically different?

Still haven't learned how to demonstrate logical fallacies have you?

You'll have to show that what theists refer to as a person isn't really just these natural processes. Since as we know, theists have often and still confuse the natural process of dying as coming from someone, lightning as coming from someone, diseases as coming from someone what makes you think they're not making the same mistake?

Since we are particularly talking about God here and I have explained to you who God is and how your representation of Him is incorrect. I'd suggest you stick to the argument and stop grasping for straws.

thehomer:

My main problem with this post is its banality.

For some reason, he gives reasons why it is a waste of time to show these ideas to believers but no reason why it is a waste of time to non-believers. Then he of course ignores the fact that most religious believers actually believe that their doctrines are true. What he of course ignores is that their message is one of avoiding magical thinking, avoiding false beliefs and presenting reasons why it is okay not to believe in Gods. Of course he already doesn't believe, has anyone asked him why he doesn't believe? And why he thinks it is fine for others to believe so strongly and waste so much resources in having false beliefs? If he doesn't want to do it, that's fine. After all, he too believes that people should avoid such poor beliefs but it doesn't mean that others shouldn't share their knowledge of the world and the fact that a God simply isn't needed.

But of course vedaxcool who posted it here won't be able to defend or critique it.

Noam Chomsky;


Is it the grieving mother who consoles herself by thinking that she will see her dying child again in heaven? If so, only the most morally depraved will deliver solemn lectures to her about the falsity of her beliefs.


differs clearly from;

dangerous beliefs and great crimes is always in order


As usual you resort to mixing up things to ensure that the message is lost, which New atheism

"new atheism" should focus its concerns on the virulent secular religions of state worship, so well exemplified by those who laud huge atrocities like the invasion of Iraq, or cannot comprehend why they might have some concern when their own state, with their support, carries out some of its minor peccadilloes, like killing probably tens of thousands of poor Africans by destroying their main source of pharmaceutical supplies on a whim -- arguably more morally depraved than intentional killing, for reasons I've discussed elsewhere. In brief, to be minimally serious the "new atheism" should begin by looking in the mirror.

Mr anony:
Considering that I never said anything about physical differences, perhaps you should explain what you mean by the phrase "physically different". What does it mean to say that something is physically different?

There's no point doing that if that isn't what you meant. So what did you mean?

Mr anony:
Since we are particularly talking about God here and I have explained to you who God is and how your representation of Him is incorrect. I'd suggest you stick to the argument and stop grasping for straws.

I just showed you how to do your work and you're still complaining.

I tire for this guy called Vedaxcool


I dont know if he just likes being off point and nonsensical

thehomer: There's no point doing that if that isn't what you meant. So what did you mean?

Exactly what I said. What part of it did you not understand.

I just showed you how to do your work and you're still complaining.

I don't know what it is you think you showed me or how it relates to the truth or falsity of the claim of atheism that God does not exist.

Logicboy03: I tire for this guy called Vedaxcool


I dont know if he just likes being off point and nonsensical

Actually I don't think he is too far off this time

vedaxcool:


Noam Chomsky;


Is it the grieving mother who consoles herself by thinking that she will see her dying child again in heaven? If so, only the most morally depraved will deliver solemn lectures to her about the falsity of her beliefs.

You do realize that a Muslim can do this to a Christian.

vedaxcool:
differs clearly from;

dangerous beliefs and great crimes is always in order

I didn't say they weren't different. I just pointed out that he does agree with some of what these atheists are doing.

vedaxcool:
As usual you resort to mixing up things to ensure that the message is lost, which New atheism

"new atheism" should focus its concerns on the virulent secular religions of state worship, so well exemplified by those who laud huge atrocities like the invasion of Iraq, or cannot comprehend why they might have some concern when their own state, with their support, carries out some of its minor peccadilloes, like killing probably tens of thousands of poor Africans by destroying their main source of pharmaceutical supplies on a whim -- arguably more morally depraved than intentional killing, for reasons I've discussed elsewhere. In brief, to be minimally serious the "new atheism" should begin by looking in the mirror.

Do atheists not speak about such issues? Besides, if Chomsky is so interested in doing those things, then he's welcome to do them. Atheists don't have to do something just because Chomsky wants it. I don't go around telling you Muslims to focus your concerns on the killing of poor Africans etc.

As usual, you don't understand what is being presented.

Mr anony:
Exactly what I said. What part of it did you not understand.

What you mean by the laws being brought about by the creator's choice.

Mr anony:
I don't know what it is you think you showed me or how it relates to the truth or falsity of the claim of atheism that God does not exist.

I showed you how your God is like the Grim Reaper. After all, the Grim Reaper too could have created the universe only to kill it.

thehomer:
You do realize that a Muslim can do this to a Christian.

Doesn't change the fact that an atheist can do it to a Hindu. What's your point?

Do atheists not speak about such issues? Besides, if Chomsky is so interested in doing those things, then he's welcome to do them. Atheists don't have to do something just because Chomsky wants it. I don't go around telling you Muslims to focus your concerns on the killing of poor Africans etc.

As usual, you don't understand what is being presented.

On the contrary, I think it is you who misses the point. Chomsky accuses atheists for condemning other beliefs for certain atrocities while their belief system is equally guilty of it's own atrocities.

.... In brief, to be minimally serious the "new atheism" should begin by looking in the mirror.

Anony, I am going to open a thread to discuss new atheism...pls join

thehomer: What you mean by the laws being brought about by the creator's choice.

The fact that natural laws could easily exist differently,
the fact that the universe they describe began to exist.
The fact that the universe could equally operate by different laws.
The fact that for something to begin to exist and act in a specific manner, it is either an impersonal thing brought it to be in which case such a thing will have to be even more highly specified by something else leading us to an infinite regress of specified instruments.
Or we can take the more logical position that specific complexity points to intelligence and with that the ability to specify which leads us to the ability of choice without which specification is impossible.
And finally we a brought face to face with a personal creator of the laws that define the universe.

I showed you how your God is like the Grim Reaper. After all, the Grim Reaper too could have created the universe only to kill it.

Lol, but i just explained to you how God is not like the Grim Reaper. Unless you want to redefine the Grim Reaper as the creator of the Cosmos who put natural laws in place.

Logicboy03: Anony, I am going to open a thread to discuss new atheism...pls join

ok

Mr anony:
Doesn't change the fact that an atheist can do it to a Hindu. What's your point?

My point is that accusing atheists of doing this is banal.

Mr anony:
On the contrary, I think it is you who misses the point. Chomsky accuses atheists for condemning other beliefs for certain atrocities while their belief system is equally guilty of it's own atrocities.

And for some reason, you and he don't seem to understand that he didn't show how atheism would actually lead to those atrocities. But, using religious texts, it is pretty easy to justify them.

Mr anony:
The fact that natural laws could easily exist differently,

How exactly do you know this? Note that for it to be factual rather than hypothetical, the difference should be physical.

Mr anony:
the fact that the universe they describe began to exist.

Begin from something or from nothing?

Mr anony:
The fact that the universe could equally operate by different laws.

Again, how do you know? Again, to be factual, the difference in the laws should be physical rather than hypothetical.

Mr anony:
The fact that for something to begin to exist and act in a specific manner, it is either an impersonal thing brought it to be in which case such a thing will have to be even more highly specified by something else leading us to an infinite regress of specified instruments.

I don't think so. The sun began to exist and act in a specific manner. It happened without some instrument.

Mr anony:
Or we can take the more logical position that specific complexity points to intelligence and with that the ability to specify which leads us to the ability of choice without which specification is impossible.

This looks like word-salad. What is "specific complexity"? How can a person make a choice without time?

Mr anony:
And finally we a brought face to face with a personal creator of the laws that define the universe.

How can it be a person yet have no body and work without time? It is either special pleading on what it means to be a person since persons as we know it have bodies and work in time or a metaphor which is just a construct of language.

Mr anony:
Lol, but i just explained to you how God is not like the Grim Reaper. Unless you want to redefine the Grim Reaper as the creator of the Cosmos who put natural laws in place.

Sure one can do that. The only difference is that the label "God" now becomes "Grim Reaper". It would still remain a metaphor.

thehomer: My point is that accusing atheists of doing this is banal.


And for some reason, you and he don't seem to understand that he didn't show how atheism would actually lead to those atrocities. But, using religious texts, it is pretty easy to justify them.

Neither did he show how religion leads one to atrocities. Yet we have the atheist states of Soviet Russia and Communist China as evidence of the atrocities of Atheism. From an atheistic/materialist worldview, it is pretty easy to justify mass murder.

Mr anony:
Neither did he show how religion leads one to atrocities. Yet we have the atheist states of Soviet Russia and Communist China as evidence of the atrocities of Atheism. From an atheistic/materialist worldview, it is pretty easy to justify mass murder.

He already accepted that as a given. Read through the presented quote.

How are they atrocities of Atheism and not maybe just totalitarianism? Or do you know the book they referred to that recommended the atrocities?

thehomer: How exactly do you know this? Note that for it to be factual rather than hypothetical, the difference should be physical.

Again, how do you know? Again, to be factual, the difference in the laws should be physical rather than hypothetical.

Pardon me but this is quite a logically incoherent demand. You are asking me how do I know that something could be different, and yet you are demanding that I provide evidence to prove that it couldn't possibly be different in order for you to believe that it could be different. You might as well ask me to provide for you evidence that I am actually in Tokyo, New York and Istanbul right now as proof that it is possible for me to be in any of those places right now.

I hope you do realize that from the moment one uses the phrase "could be", we are now firmly in the realm of the hypothetical.

Let us look at you consider factual again:

....Note that for it to be factual rather than hypothetical, the difference should be physical.

This particular phrase is not true. For example, 2+2=4 is a true factual statement. but the statement is not physical. . .unless of course you mean something else when you talk about "physical". For which I'll ask you to explain what you mean by "physical" in this sense.

Begin from something or from nothing?

That's the point I'm making. From nothing, nothing comes.

I don't think so. The sun began to exist and act in a specific manner. It happened without some instrument.

Specific physical laws are the instrument used in bringing the sun into existence

This looks like word-salad. What is "specific complexity"? How can a person make a choice without time?

Specific complexity: this describes a thing as having many interconnected parts all working in harmony according to a definite pattern.
How can a person make a choice without time? The fact that a state of time and a state of timelessness are possible is proof that a choice can be made between the two states. All that is necessary for choice is an alternative.

How can it be a person yet have no body and work without time? It is either special pleading on what it means to be a person since persons as we know it have bodies and work in time or a metaphor which is just a construct of language.

A person is not defined by his material body. This is evident in the fact that you are regarded as the same person from 10 years ago even though you currently exist in a different body than the one you had 10 years ago.

Sure one can do that. The only difference is that the label "God" now becomes "Grim Reaper". It would still remain a metaphor.

Well in that case, one can also change the label "thehomer" to "Grim Reaper" as a metaphor for the words in this forum and the voice I heard on the phone. The point is that once you divorce words from their meanings, you can end up with anything. When you are ready for serious discussion rather than meaningless straws, let me know.

thehomer:

He already accepted that as a given. Read through the presented quote.

How are they atrocities of Atheism and not maybe just totalitarianism? Or do you know the book they referred to that recommended the atrocities?

In the same way he accepted it as a given that atheism has it's own atrocities

Mr anony:
Pardon me but this is quite a logically incoherent demand. You are asking me how do I know that something could be different, and yet you are demanding that I provide evidence to prove that it couldn't possibly be different in order for you to believe that it could be different. You might as well ask me to provide for you evidence that I am actually in Tokyo, New York and Istanbul right now as proof that it is possible for me to be in any of those places right now.

You're confused again I see. I'm asking you to show me that something you claim as being different is actually different.

Mr anony:
I hope you do realize that from the moment one uses the phrase "could be", we are now firmly in the realm of the hypothetical.

This is just more of your confusion. I'm asking you to show that it could be different. It is like you claiming that you know people travel faster than light. And I ask you to show me that it could be the case that people actually move faster than the speed of light.

Mr anony:
Let us look at you consider factual again:

This particular phrase is not true. For example, 2+2=4 is a true factual statement. but the statement is not physical. . .unless of course you mean something else when you talk about "physical". For which I'll ask you to explain what you mean by "physical" in this sense.

This is why you should try to reflect on what is being asked. We're talking about the universe not an axiom. Or do you think that the universe is an axiom? The "it" there refers to your claim about the universe not a claim about axioms.

Mr anony:
That's the point I'm making. From nothing, nothing comes.

Was there ever nothing?

Mr anony:
Specific physical laws are the instrument used in bringing the sun into existence


Specific complexity: this describes a thing as having many interconnected parts all working in harmony according to a definite pattern.

Pretty much all objects larger than fundamental particles fit this description so it isn't helpful.

Mr anony:
How can a person make a choice without time? The fact that a state of time and a state of timelessness are possible is proof that a choice can be made between the two states. All that is necessary for choice is an alternative.

No it isn't proof that a choice can me made. You've not even shown that a state of timelessness is possible that is just your hypothetical. Neither have you shown that a person can actually be in such a state. Or have you encountered someone chilling in this state of timelessness?

Mr anony:
A person is not defined by his material body. This is evident in the fact that you are regarded as the same person from 10 years ago even though you currently exist in a different body than the one you had 10 years ago.

An irrelevant point. 10years ago, I had a body. Today, I still have a body but does this God have a body today?

Mr anony:
Well in that case, one can also change the label "thehomer" to "Grim Reaper" as a metaphor for the words in this forum and the voice I heard on the phone. The point is that once you divorce words from their meanings, you can end up with anything. When you are ready for serious discussion rather than meaningless straws, let me know.

But the label "thehomer" already applies to an actual person and not a metaphor while the labels "God" and "Grim Reaper" apply to metaphors. Labeling a metaphor doesn't turn it into a person. That is the point I was making.

Mr anony:
In the same way he accepted it as a given that atheism has it's own atrocities

This is not an answer to the question I asked.

thehomer:
You're confused again I see. I'm asking you to show me that something you claim as being different is actually different.



This is just more of your confusion. I'm asking you to show that it could be different. It is like you claiming that you know people travel faster than light. And I ask you to show me that it could be the case that people actually move faster than the speed of light.



This is why you should try to reflect on what is being asked. We're talking about the universe not an axiom. Or do you think that the universe is an axiom? The "it" there refers to your claim about the universe not a claim about axioms.

This is what I have claimed: It is possible to have different physical laws defining our universe
This is what you have demanded: Is it physically possible for the universe to operate under different physical laws?
This is the clarification I have asked for: In what sense do you mean "physical"?
Please clarify so that I can answer you.

Was there ever nothing?

There was always God

Pretty much all objects larger than fundamental particles fit this description so it isn't helpful.

really, how does a grain of sand, a drop of water, a pile of stones, a bacteria cell, a house, a sheet of paper, a novel and a cellphone fit this description? Be sure to talk about their constituent parts and how they all work in harmony according to a specific pattern.
Secondly, can you tell the difference between a heap of bricks and a brick house? Can you tell which of them is more likely to be designed and which isn't? and most importantly, can you explain how you know this?

No it isn't proof that a choice can me made. You've not even shown that a state of timelessness is possible that is just your hypothetical. Neither have you shown that a person can actually be in such a state. Or have you encountered someone chilling in this state of timelessness?

If you agree that time started at the big bang, then you would agree that a state of timelessness is possible. . .unless of course you don't, then you'll have to hold that the universe is eternal.
Secondly I don't define a person based on the existence material body however the prescence of a person can be identified by the presence of a will/ability to make choices.

An irrelevant point. 10years ago, I had a body. Today, I still have a body but does this God have a body today?

As I said, a person is not defined by the presence of a body. That's the point you missed.

But the label "thehomer" already applies to an actual person and not a metaphor while the labels "God" and "Grim Reaper" apply to metaphors. Labeling a metaphor doesn't turn it into a person. That is the point I was making.

Same way the "God" refers to a specific person. Labeling God a metaphor doesn't make him one.
It is amusing how in order for you to make an argument, you desperately seek first to misrepresent what you are arguing against.

thehomer: This is not an answer to the question I asked.

Perhaps you should ask your question to Mr Chomsky because he took it for granted that atheism leads to it's own atrocities.

Mr anony:
This is what I have claimed: It is possible to have different physical laws defining our universe
This is what you have demanded: Is it physically possible for the universe to operate under different physical laws?

So what is the problem with that question?

Mr anony:
This is the clarification I have asked for: In what sense do you mean "physical"?
Please clarify so that I can answer you.

You really should try to use a dictionary from time to time.

Physical: Having to do with the material world.

Mr anony:
There was always God

How do you know?

Mr anony:
really, how does a grain of sand, a drop of water, a pile of stones, a bacteria cell, a house, a sheet of paper, a novel and a cellphone fit this description? Be sure to talk about their constituent parts and how they all work in harmony according to a specific pattern.

They're all made of fundamental particles and those fundamental particles work a certain way. But do you think the objects you listed fit your description?

Mr anony:
Secondly, can you tell the difference between a heap of bricks and a brick house? Can you tell which of them is more likely to be designed and which isn't? and most importantly, can you explain how you know this?

Sure I can. I know this because I've seen people design and build houses and I've seen them throw together a heap of bricks. Now can you tell the difference? Keep in mind that they both consist of those fundamental particles working in a certain way.

Mr anony:
If you agree that time started at the big bang, then you would agree that a state of timelessness is possible. . .unless of course you don't, then you'll have to hold that the universe is eternal.

That's just it. The universe was never in a state of timelessness.

Mr anony:
Secondly I don't define a person based on the existence material body however the prescence of a person can be identified by the presence of a will/ability to make choices.

Sure you don't but what you're saying remains incoherent. Or do you think a will just floats around out there? Or is there some "ability to make choices" floating around without a body? A criminal may as well say that it was such a free floating will that made them do what they did. If you have evidence for this free floating will, please present it.

Mr anony:
As I said, a person is not defined by the presence of a body. That's the point you missed.

That is not a point, that was just incoherence based on misrepresentations or misunderstanding of the requirements for being a person.

Mr anony:
Same way the "God" refers to a specific person. Labeling God a metaphor doesn't make him one.
It is amusing how in order for you to make an argument, you desperately seek first to misrepresent what you are arguing against.

That's just it. You've not shown that it refers to a specific person and not a metaphor because what you've been attributing to God is what happens in the figure of speech, personification.

Mr anony:
Perhaps you should ask your question to Mr Chomsky because he took it for granted that atheism leads to it's own atrocities.

I'm asking you since you picked up the baton of properly presenting his views. Though it looks like you're unable to do what you'll need to do for what you're saying to be accurate.

thehomer:

So what is the problem with that question?

You really should try to use a dictionary from time to time.

Physical: Having to do with the material world.

Oh I see, so just to get you right, are you asking whether it is possible for the universe to operate differently and yet still have space, time and matter? If that's your question, the answer is Yes.

How do you know?

Because nothing comes from nothing. An eternal uncaused being must exist from which all things proceed

They're all made of fundamental particles and those fundamental particles work a certain way. But do you think the objects you listed fit your description?

Well, this doesn't really answer my question. I was expecting you to actually think of the constituent parts of each of them but if you are going to reduce them to how electrons, atoms and molecules work together in harmony, I'll call it design at that level.

Sure I can. I know this because I've seen people design and build houses and I've seen them throw together a heap of bricks. Now can you tell the difference? Keep in mind that they both consist of those fundamental particles working in a certain way.

Are you saying you only know a thing is designed if you have seen people design it before? I know a house is designed as opposed to a pile of bricks because I see the bricks arranged in a specific complex pattern. Note that at the level of a house, the constituent parts I am looking at here are the bricks. I am not looking at the atoms to deduce design at this level.

That's just it. The universe was never in a state of timelessness.

I never said the universe was in a state of timelessness. I said time began therefore there must have been timelessness preceding it

Sure you don't but what you're saying remains incoherent. Or do you think a will just floats around out there? Or is there some "ability to make choices" floating around without a body? A criminal may as well say that it was such a free floating will that made them do what they did. If you have evidence for this free floating will, please present it.

I'm afraid this is just a gross misrepresentation from you and doesn't relate to the point in my post at all.

That is not a point, that was just incoherence based on misrepresentations or misunderstanding of the requirements for being a person.

Really, what are the requirements for being a person?

That's just it. You've not shown that it refers to a specific person and not a metaphor because what you've been attributing to God is what happens in the figure of speech, personification.

Well neither have you been able to show that thehomer refers to a specific person and not a metaphor

thehomer: I'm asking you since you picked up the baton of properly presenting his views. Though it looks like you're unable to do what you'll need to do for what you're saying to be accurate.

I've properly presented his views that he took evils proceeding from atheism for granted. If you have a problem with that, feel free to take it up with him.

Mr anony:
Oh I see, so just to get you right, are you asking whether it is possible for the universe to operate differently and yet still have space, time and matter? If that's your question, the answer is Yes.

As usual, you once again skirt a direct question to answer one you've set for yourself. Neither space, time nor matter are physical laws. You're starting to bore me again.

Mr anony:
Because nothing comes from nothing. An eternal uncaused being must exist from which all things proceed

Good. Now how do you know that this "being" is a person and not e.g energy?

Mr anony:
Well, this doesn't really answer my question. I was expecting you to actually think of the constituent parts of each of them but if you are going to reduce them to how electrons, atoms and molecules work together in harmony, I'll call it design at that level.

Good. So you're accepting that pretty much all things are designed except fundamental particles.

Mr anony:
Are you saying you only know a thing is designed if you have seen people design it before? I know a house is designed as opposed to a pile of bricks because I see the bricks arranged in a specific complex pattern. Note that at the level of a house, the constituent parts I am looking at here are the bricks. I am not looking at the atoms to deduce design at this level.

You've already deduced design at the level of the bricks. Where did that previous design go? Secondly, the pile of bricks does have a specific complex pattern. You just don't live in it.

Mr anony:
I never said the universe was in a state of timelessness. I said time began therefore there must have been timelessness preceding it

Time began with the universe and your references were to the universe. How can one make a decision in a state of timelessness?

Mr anony:
I'm afraid this is just a gross misrepresentation from you and doesn't relate to the point in my post at all.

Then read through your post. Your post was talking about a will hanging out there not being from a body. You can clarify by telling me which comes first the person or the will?

Mr anony:
Really, what are the requirements for being a person?

The requirements include time and a body.

Mr anony:
Well neither have you been able to show that thehomer refers to a specific person and not a metaphor

This is just absurdly ridiculous. You can determine this by finding out whether or not Mr anony refers to a specific person and not a metaphor.

thehomer:
As usual, you once again skirt a direct question to answer one you've set for yourself. Neither space, time nor matter are physical laws. You're starting to bore me again.

Lol, So asking you to clarify yourself is now the same as skirting around the question abi? You amuse me.

Let us recap. You asked whether it is physically possible for physical laws that define the universe to be different. I asked what you meant by "physically possible". You said "having to do with the material world". What I know to be the material world is space, time and matter. If you know something else that is the material world but has nothing to do with space time or matter, then please come out with.

Physical laws simply describe how space time and matter behave. Is it possible for space time and matter to behave differently? The answer is YES. If your question means something else, then be prepared to explain what it means. . .or perhaps your question might just be a logically incoherent one judging by how hard it is for you to clarify it so far.

Good. Now how do you know that this "being" is a person and not e.g energy?

Energy does not cause anything. It is only an attribute of matter: a description of matter in motion. Energy does not exist without matter and hence cannot cause matter to begin to exist.

Good. So you're accepting that pretty much all things are designed except fundamental particles.

You've already deduced design at the level of the bricks. Where did that previous design go? Secondly, the pile of bricks does have a specific complex pattern. You just don't live in it.

This is you missing the point of what design is. Design is deduced from the relationship of constituent parts and not the nature of constituent parts themselves. It is very possible for a city to be undesigned but the houses within it are designed. You are committing the fallacy of composition again.

Time began with the universe and your references were to the universe. How can one make a decision in a state of timelessness?

Perhaps you should ask how can time begin?

Then read through your post. Your post was talking about a will hanging out there not being from a body. You can clarify by telling me which comes first the person or the will?

I pointed to you that the special selection of an alternatives points to the ability of choice which in turn points to the presence of a will and ultimately to the presence of a person. I do not hold that a person necessarily must exist in a material body. If you think a person is defined by the presence of a body, please show how this is true because I have never seen your material body yet I have deduced that I am communicating with a person because you are constantly making specific choices in your responses to me. Am I wrong in my deduction?

The requirements include time and a body.

And the remaining requirements are what? because time and a body is shared by every peice of matter in the universe. What distinguishes a person from every other material object in the universe.

This is just absurdly ridiculous. You can determine this by finding out whether or not Mr anony refers to a specific person and not a metaphor.

How would you go about doing this? I'll make it even tougher for you. How do you know that Socrates, Julius Ceasar, Don Quixote, Oliver Twist, Attila the Hun and Napoleon Bonaparte were indeed persons and not metaphors used to describe events?

Mr anony:
Lol, So asking you to clarify yourself is now the same as skirting around the question abi? You amuse me.

Let us recap. You asked whether it is physically possible for physical laws that define the universe to be different. I asked what you meant by "physically possible". You said "having to do with the material world". What I know to be the material world is space, time and matter. If you know something else that is the material world but has nothing to do with space time or matter, then please come out with.

Physical laws simply describe how space time and matter behave. Is it possible for space time and matter to behave differently? The answer is YES. If your question means something else, then be prepared to explain what it means. . .or perhaps your question might just be a logically incoherent one judging by how hard it is for you to clarify it so far.

Why didn't you simply answer "Yes" initially rather than answering some other question you set for yourself? Now how do you know that it is physically possible for it to be different?

Mr anony:
Energy does not cause anything. It is only an attribute of matter: a description of matter in motion. Energy does not exist without matter and hence cannot cause matter to begin to exist.

Energy can become matter and matter can become energy so under certain conditions, you can have energy without matter such as the early state of the universe.

Mr anony:
This is you missing the point of what design is. Design is deduced from the relationship of constituent parts and not the nature of constituent parts themselves. It is very possible for a city to be undesigned but the houses within it are designed. You are committing the fallacy of composition again.

No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out to you that even the city that you're using as an example is actually designed since it has complex parts acting in a certain way. Or do you want to change your conception of design?

Mr anony:
Perhaps you should ask how can time begin?

I don't want to ask that. I want to know how one can make a decision without time as you say your "person" did.

Mr anony:
I pointed to you that the special selection of an alternatives points to the ability of choice which in turn points to the presence of a will and ultimately to the presence of a person. I do not hold that a person necessarily must exist in a material body. If you think a person is defined by the presence of a body, please show how this is true because I have never seen your material body yet I have deduced that I am communicating with a person because you are constantly making specific choices in your responses to me. Am I wrong in my deduction?

No you're not wrong because surprise surprise, you've not encountered a person without a body before. You can show that it is possible for a person to be a person without a body by just presenting an example of such a person. Sure you don't hold that a person needs a body but then my point is that such a belief isn't really justified. So, does the will exist before the person or does the person exist before the will?

Mr anony:
And the remaining requirements are what? because time and a body is shared by every peice of matter in the universe. What distinguishes a person from every other material object in the universe.

That's all I need to make my point here. Other features include sapience, social intelligence, memory etc. My point remains that they need a body and need to process intelligence in time. You seem to think otherwise so please show why you think otherwise.

Mr anony:
How would you go about doing this? I'll make it even tougher for you. How do you know that Socrates, Julius Ceasar, Don Quixote, Oliver Twist, Attila the Hun and Napoleon Bonaparte were indeed persons and not metaphors used to describe events?

This is just another attempt at obfuscation. This does nothing to address the problems with your idea of being a person. All the people whether fictional or historical had fictional or actual bodies and made decisions in fictional or actual time. The person you're proposing neither has a body nor made a decision in time. Unless you think you're a metaphor, I see no reason why this list of people helps you.

thehomer:
Why didn't you simply answer "Yes" initially rather than answering some other question you set for yourself? Now how do you know that it is physically possible for it to be different?

Urhm, have you been paying attention at all or are you just unwilling to clarify what you mean by "physically possible".

Well let me continue answering what I think your question means: If you mean how do I know it is possible for space time and matter to behave differently? My answer is we know this because the physical constants that define the universe do not exist necessarily. For instance: The speed of light i.e. the speed of a photon moving in a vacuum can be different because we see particles moving at different speeds all the time and in different directions too. Another example is the rate of expansion of the universe. How do I know it can be different? Because I see things expanding at different rates all the time. There is nothing that stops the universe from expanding slower or faster than it currently is. So yes it is very possible to have an entirely different universe than we currently observe.

Energy can become matter and matter can become energy so under certain conditions, you can have energy without matter such as the early state of the universe.

Lol, really? and how do you know that it is energy that exists without matter? Did you measure it? or did you just label it "energy"?

No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out to you that even the city that you're using as an example is actually designed since it has complex parts acting in a certain way. Or do you want to change your conception of design?

Lol, really? Have you ever been to a proper ghetto with buildings sprawled all over the place? Can you point out a specific pattern which the ghetto buildings follow?

I don't want to ask that. I want to know how one can make a decision without time as you say your "person" did.

Seriously? It appears you are not ready for any serious discussion then. To make choices, one needs alternatives. The fact that time is an alternative to timelessness as evidenced by the fact time itself has a beginning is proof that choice is possible outside time.

No you're not wrong because surprise surprise, you've not encountered a person without a body before. You can show that it is possible for a person to be a person without a body by just presenting an example of such a person. Sure you don't hold that a person needs a body but then my point is that such a belief isn't really justified. So, does the will exist before the person or does the person exist before the will?

Lol, this is interesting. You are saying that I am not justified to deduce the existence of a person based on ability to make choices because I haven't come across a material body. So I am not justified in thinking you are a person neither are you justified in thinking I am a person. The question of which exists first is irrelevant in my opinion. . .unless you are about to tell me why it is important to know which came first in order to know if a person has a will?
Secondly, because a will is attribute of person, your question kinda sounds like "Which came first liquid or wetness?" or "Which came first a circle or roundness?" Basically, your question is pretty meaningless to me but of course you can always explain why you are asking.

That's all I need to make my point here. Other features include sapience, social intelligence, memory etc. My point remains that they need a body and need to process intelligence in time. You seem to think otherwise so please show why you think otherwise.

My point is simple, it is the intelligence and the will that tells me that I have encountered a person and not a material body. It is the very same principle I am operating by in my conversations with you.

This is just another attempt at obfuscation. This does nothing to address the problems with your idea of being a person. All the people whether fictional or historical had fictional or actual bodies and made decisions in fictional or actual time. The person you're proposing neither has a body nor made a decision in time. Unless you think you're a metaphor, I see no reason why this list of people helps you.

No it isn't. The purpose I am asking you that question is because you claim that I am not justified in saying that person does not depend on the presence of a body. You also claim that God is only a metaphor used to explain nature i.e. a personification of events.
Since you cannot show that all the examples are indeed persons responsible for certain actions in history by showing their bodies, how do we know they aren't just metaphors used to explain historical/archeological stuff?
Secondly, you talk of fictional persons and fictional bodies. How do you know they are not merely metaphors used in story telling? How was it that you were able to tell the difference between persons in stories and other parts of the story that are not persons? Let me guess: the presence of willful actions perhaps?

Stop dancing around my friend.

Mr anony:
Urhm, have you been paying attention at all or are you just unwilling to clarify what you mean by "physically possible".

I've done that already.

Mr anony:
Well let me continue answering what I think your question means: If you mean how do I know it is possible for space time and matter to behave differently? My answer is we know this because the physical constants that define the universe do not exist necessarily. For instance: The speed of light i.e. the speed of a photon moving in a vacuum can be different because we see particles moving at different speeds all the time and in different directions too. Another example is the rate of expansion of the universe. How do I know it can be different? Because I see things expanding at different rates all the time. There is nothing that stops the universe from expanding slower or faster than it currently is. So yes it is very possible to have an entirely different universe than we currently observe.

This is why I keep saying you don't understand the difference between logical possibilities and physical possibilities. The fact that a certain condition is logically possible doesn't mean it is physically possible. e.g the fact that it is logically possible for one to flip a coin and the coin transmutes into a stone doesn't mean that it is physically possible for that to happen. You'll notice that neither the coin nor the stone exist necessarily. This is why I keep on asking you to focus on the physical possibilities.
Slowing down a photon doesn't change the speed of light, it just changes the speed of that photon. Secondly, the expansion you observe within the universe is a very different concept from the expansion of the universe itself.

Mr anony:
Lol, really? and how do you know that it is energy that exists without matter? Did you measure it? or did you just label it "energy"?

No, because matter can only exist below certain temperatures. Now, what did this "person" cause?

Mr anony:
Lol, really? Have you ever been to a proper ghetto with buildings sprawled all over the place? Can you point out a specific pattern which the ghetto buildings follow?

Show me the ghetto and I'll show you the pattern.

Mr anony:
Seriously? It appears you are not ready for any serious discussion then. To make choices, one needs alternatives. The fact that time is an alternative to timelessness as evidenced by the fact time itself has a beginning is proof that choice is possible outside time.

No it isn't proof any such thing because you've ignored the crucial point. To make choices, one needs alternatives and time to process those alternatives. So, at what point in this timelessness does the decision occur?

Mr anony:
Lol, this is interesting. You are saying that I am not justified to deduce the existence of a person based on ability to make choices because I haven't come across a material body. So I am not justified in thinking you are a person neither are you justified in thinking I am a person. The question of which exists first is irrelevant in my opinion. . .unless you are about to tell me why it is important to know which came first in order to know if a person has a will?

Why do you persist in just misquoting me? I said you're not justified in holding the belief that there are persons without bodies.

Mr anony:
Secondly, because a will is attribute of person, your question kinda sounds like "Which came first liquid or wetness?" or "Which came first a circle or roundness?" Basically, your question is pretty meaningless to me but of course you can always explain why you are asking.

Mr anony:
I pointed to you that the special selection of an alternatives points to the ability of choice which in turn points to the presence of a will and ultimately to the presence of a person.

How on earth are the two central points of contention irrelevant? You've said a person works independent of time. You've also been talking about some will that exists simply due to the presence of alternatives. Since you've separated the person, time and the will, I think it is reasonable to inquire which of them preceded the other.
Using your analogies, you would be saying that the mere presence of pain means there must be wetness or the mere presence of a square means there must be roundness.
Or to use something much clearer, magnets have two poles. When placing the north pole of a magnet next to another north pole, the alternatives are repulsion, attraction, nothing happens. The two magnets then repel. Are these magnets persons for repelling each other? They could have attracted each other or done nothing.

Mr anony:
My point is simple, it is the intelligence and the will that tells me that I have encountered a person and not a material body. It is the very same principle I am operating by in my conversations with you.

Again you seem to deliberately miss what I've said. Do you think I have a material body and that I operate in time?

Mr anony:
No it isn't. The purpose I am asking you that question is because you claim that I am not justified in saying that person does not depend on the presence of a body. You also claim that God is only a metaphor used to explain nature i.e. a personification of events.
Since you cannot show that all the examples are indeed persons responsible for certain actions in history by showing their bodies, how do we know they aren't just metaphors used to explain historical/archeological stuff?
Secondly, you talk of fictional persons and fictional bodies. How do you know they are not merely metaphors used in story telling? How was it that you were able to tell the difference between persons in stories and other parts of the story that are not persons? Let me guess: the presence of willful actions perhaps?

Stop dancing around my friend.

The fact of the interactions they had in those stories. Their interactions were with other bodies and time unlike the God you're introducing. Can you pick two individuals from your list that you think were just metaphors for examination to see if they had bodies of some sort and worked in some sort of time.

thehomer: I've done that already.

Lol, have you now?

This is why I keep saying you don't understand the difference between logical possibilities and physical possibilities.

Perhaps you'll have to tell us precisely what this difference is.

The fact that a certain condition is logically possible doesn't mean it is physically possible. e.g the fact that it is logically possible for one to flip a coin and the coin transmutes into a stone doesn't mean that it is physically possible for that to happen. You'll notice that neither the coin nor the stone exist necessarily. This is why I keep on asking you to focus on the physical possibilities.

I'm sorry but the ridiculous example you gave resembles nothing I have been talking about. The laws that define the universe are not physical objects. You are yet to show how the term physical possibilities relates to the physical laws themselves that define what is physically possible in the first place. Until you can do that, you simply asking a logically incoherent question.

Slowing down a photon doesn't change the speed of light, it just changes the speed of that photon. Secondly, the expansion you observe within the universe is a very different concept from the expansion of the universe itself.

Lol really? Do you think the speed of light represents an actual speed or do you think it was merely a number made up to fix an equation? Stop being ridiculous. The fact that we observe different speeds going on in the universe is proof that the speed of light could have been an entirely different speed hence changing the fabric of spacetime itself.
Secondly in what way is the expansion of the universe different from other types of expansion seeing that it involves particles in the expanding entity moving away from each other? You are just wriggling like a fly caught in a web.

No, because matter can only exist below certain temperatures. Now, what did this "person" cause?

You have not answered my question. I asked you: In those situations where you claim that there was no matter, how did you know energy was there? Did you measure it or did you just label it "energy"?

Show me the ghetto and I'll show you the pattern.

with pleasure....


KIBERA


RUBIA

The above are pictures of Kibera and Rubia districts in Nairobi. Now please tell us which of them you think is designed and why. If you think both are designed, then please show us the design.

No it isn't proof any such thing because you've ignored the crucial point. To make choices, one needs alternatives and time to process those alternatives. So, at what point in this timelessness does the decision occur?

Lol, but we have been able to show alternatives existing outside of time. In fact we have a situation where time itself and it's manner of behavior is an alternative.

Why do you persist in just misquoting me? I said you're not justified in holding the belief that there are persons without bodies.

And which part of my comment is a misquoting of your statement?

How on earth are the two central points of contention irrelevant? You've said a person works independent of time. You've also been talking about some will that exists simply due to the presence of alternatives. Since you've separated the person, time and the will, I think it is reasonable to inquire which of them preceded the other.

but this is you begging the question in favour of time. And besides I haven't separated the person and the will. I hold that a will is an attribute of person like wetness is to liquid and roundness is to circles.

Using your analogies, you would be saying that the mere presence of pain means there must be wetness or the mere presence of a square means there must be roundness.

I don't understand what you are saying here

Or to use something much clearer, magnets have two poles. When placing the north pole of a magnet next to another north pole, the alternatives are repulsion, attraction, nothing happens. The two magnets then repel. Are these magnets persons for repelling each other? They could have attracted each other or done nothing.

The behaviour of magnets is only possible because the universe has physical laws by which it operates. These physical laws do not exist necessarily. The alternatives we have for these physical laws are not merely one or two but a near infinite number of possible universes yet we have a specific universe acting according to a specific pattern. Surely there must be an intelligent mind.

Again you seem to deliberately miss what I've said. Do you think I have a material body and that I operate in time?

I think you do. but that's because of the kind of information I am deducing from. In your case I am deducing that you are a human person because you create human information which I am familiar with and by the way is not material in nature. On the other hand I am deducing that God is not a physical being because He caused the physical to begin to exist i.e. There was nothing material before the first bit of matter as well as the first moment of time and the first volume of space appeared and started following certain very specific rules. I therefore deduce that God is not the same form as His material creation. The creator of matter, space and time must transcend matter space and time.

The fact of the interactions they had in those stories. Their interactions were with other bodies and time unlike the God you're introducing. Can you pick two individuals from your list that you think were just metaphors for examination to see if they had bodies of some sort and worked in some sort of time.

That's precisely the question I asked you. You are the one claiming they must have had bodies. Prove it or I'll take it that you are not justified in holding that belief. Which ones are persons and which ones are metaphorical or fictional and how did you tell the difference?