KAG's Posts
Nairaland Forum › KAG's Profile › KAG's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 55 pages)
 Christianity Etc › Re: Mazaje, State The Purpose Of Your Life! by KAG: 4:34pm On May 07, 2010 |
Deep Sight:"That continues in existence." Yes. It makes sense, yes? So you recant this: "It is laughable that you can assert that a destination is of NO relevance to a journey." Oh, I should add that although the memory - more the joy, effects, etc. - of the activities may not become lost immediately, but in many cases that does happen eventually (and not because of physical death, I might add). That doesn't mean the experience was invalid while it was experienced. By the way, I don't think you know what the term "circular argument" means. I don't mean that in a nasty way, just that you seem to be using it to justify handwaving. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Mazaje, State The Purpose Of Your Life! by KAG: 4:23pm On May 07, 2010 |
Deep Sight:Except it doesn't suggest that. What, exactly, is the harmonious purpose that your argument suggests? What is this something of which you speak? In any case, yes it is all abstract - further making a mockery of your argument by simple numbers and mathematical notations - but it once again suggests a lack of imagination if one cannot understand living is meaningful while it lasts. An intelligent dinosaur needn't fear extinction while still alive. I verily suspect that you have not been reading my posts. Perhaps they are not worth reading?Verily, I did. I understand that, but if you're going to represent the individual by a number in a mathematical equation, then you can't ignore salient facts like: the individual did not emerge from a vacuum and there are changes left after the death of the individual. Thus when you talk about “fellow humans” and “society” you have not grasped what I earlier spoke about – to wit – the inevitable finite nature of matter as a whole – which implies that life, the world, humanity, matter, indeed the whole universe as we know it – must perforce – within the finite worldview that you espouse – must perforce terminate – in the same way as the individual has a life-span that comes to an end.Then you must, as a matter of neccesity, create separate arguments for why those in themselves are also meaningless because - or if - they come to an end. However, irrespective of the likelihood of the end of the earth, the fact still remains that in addition to the significance imposed on the life of an individual while living, some is also attached - because of what remains after the death of the individual - to their demise. Thus the argument operates first at the macro-level – to with what can be said to be the purpose of ALL EXISTENCE – the earth, the world, humanity, the universe – if it all ends in nothingnessWould you want to argue that societies, the Earth, and the Universe are all meaningless because they too will end? Because it isn't so for an individual. They exist. Their existence doesn't need the imposition of purpose by an aware being. While the space individual beings need to survive remains, though, then the being can carry on imposing meaning into their life. I absolutely assert to you that both mathematically and affirmatively this = 0.Absolutism based on faulty syllogisms and terrible mathematical representations? Not while it exists. After death, all wishful thinking is nonsense. Perhaps you are having trouble understanding the context of the word “purpose.”If that's what is meant by purpose in this context, then no, I wasn't having trouble understanding the context of the word. First, the universe is most likely purposeless, except when one is imposed upon it by beings. Second, there is no certainty on the fate of the universe, so don't get ahead of the edge of the universe. Finally, the fate of the universe will ultimately play a part in whether the hubris of anthropocentrism has been worthy of the egos that propped it; but in the purpose of a human capable of thought and imgination, life's purpose is experienced while the human is alive and when dead by ripples caused. That nothing may some day be the fate of all does not change the imposition of purpose. On a final note for this point let me ask you why you assume that “society” and “fellow men” are so important? In the unspeakable vastness of the known universe alone, you are aware that the earth amounts to less than a speck of dust. If it were to explode and cease to exist tomorrow, the universe would not notice even a slight blip. Given this why do you suppose that the lives being lived here are of any relevance, meaning, or purpose to anything.You mean other than the fact human beings are such social animals that society and fellow humans are important aspects of their heavens? Yes, I am aware of the earth's status in the universe. The earth is here yet; there is no saying that the "universe" won't notice the ceasation of the earth as a planet. However, why are lives relevant then? Because they exist yet. That one will die, etc. is more reason to enjoy being alive now. That it may end shouldn't cause one to become nihilistic, it should instead engender existentialism - living matters now that you're alive, not for what someone thinks matters in a million years from now or an eternity after death. If those lives end in nothingness, then certainly everything that they supposedly meant, = 0.I want to address this specifically. To whom does everything they supposedly meant mean nothing if they have ended in nothing? The perspective of an observer is affording meaning to what you are advocating is nothing. Thus, to reiterate my previous argument, the point of those lives continue to be meaningful unless a meaningless hypothetical is brought into play. What I mean is, your argument here is meaningless because it requires a perspective - or to be more accurate, perspectives - on those lives and the assurance of a lack of effect on anything after demise; however, the paradox begins to become apparent, because the lives cannot then said to have ended in nothingness. The point would be that the life of the individual wouldn't have ended if they are capable of thinking in such nihilistic terms. Experience living, then.More, like alluded earlier, knowing that one doesn't have an eternity to experience living is a useful way of focusing ones energies on life.And what would the point of such focus be, given that it all = 0? Your strawman doesn't change what is immediately apparent: "simple mathematics is a poor indication of such philosophical concepts that appear in this thread".Of course simple mathematics is a poor indication of such philosophical concepts that appear in this thread,When it is convenient for the scientific materialist, mathematics suddenly becomes a “poor indicator?” Please. No, mathematics didn't suddenly become a poor indicator because it was a convenient thing to state. It's nothing more than that simple mathematics (you know, the one where the coming into existence of a human being is represented by the number "0" and "1" represents life) is a remarkably poor indication of the concepts argued for in this thread. Except it doesn't collapse. No, my argument isn't circular. The point there being that further meaning to an individual's life is to be found external to the life lived. Like I mentioned previously, the indivdual doesn't emerge from a vacuum. That there be no purpose to the universe doesn't preclude purpose in the life of an individual and their respective societ(y)(ies). I think that's one of the major mistakes you're making.but if we were to use mathematics to represent life, then the individual will be a number within a set. That is, rather than the perhaps silly notion that you've indicated (0 + 1), it's more:I hope you see already that once we talk at the macro-level, your allusion to sets collapses entirely. Sure, back to the individual, just don't forget that the individual neither live nor dies in a vacuum. Nor, in fact, is the human enterprise as a whole to be found in a vacuum. Actually, you have the wrong notations again. While the sum of all sets may end without life (your zero), the lives keep imposing meaning on themselves. So the numbers and representations within the sets ae still functional. The ability to do that only matters in life. The importance of purpose is found in living - hence the inclusion of society as a set. You're mistaking a lack of eternal life with not having purpose while alive. Key word being: alive.{Copulation between two individuals = new life} Society of any given number.Let me complete the equation for you, for your equation is incomplete. It presumes an eternal society, which is not your worldview. There really is no circularity to be found here. When you are tired of going round the same circle, throw the ball back at me and ask what view I have that evades the Zero factor. I would give it to you.Again, the circularity seemingly only exists in your mind. To be honest, and not to be rude, I don't think I care either way. If you want to state it, feel free, but I'll call it and declare it will amount to wishful thinking to alleviate the discmfort caused by suffering and death. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Mazaje, State The Purpose Of Your Life! by KAG: 2:51pm On May 07, 2010 |
jesus.:Really? You got that from his post? I would argue that people don't believe in Atheism, but that they become or are labelled atheists because they don't believe in the existence of gods. A tad pedantic, but it alleviates confusion. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Mazaje, State The Purpose Of Your Life! by KAG: 2:30pm On May 07, 2010 |
Deep Sight:There is a truism that has almost become cliche that applies here: "It is not everyone that is wandering that is lost". There's a sport I enjoy that involves simply running round an athletics track. You're not really going anywhere, just round and round, but for many experiencing the run is joy enough to justify what your position denies. If you have the time someday, take a trip to a fair. Stop, if you will, at one of those wonderful carousel rides. See if you can find the destination of the wonderfully happy riders. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Mazaje, State The Purpose Of Your Life! by KAG: 2:18pm On May 07, 2010 |
Deep Sight:What I am getting from your position is that you are having trouble understanding how life can have maning if it has to end at some point. That, in my opinion, suggests a lack of imagination if nothing else. Life is meaningful while it is being lived. The effects an individual has not only on her or his fellow humans but also on their environment is of great significance, even if it isn't noticed or fully realised. More, like alluded earlier, knowing that one doesn't have an eternity to experience living is a useful way of focusing ones energies on life. That in itself is a meaning to life - the individual's and by extension society's. For I positively assert that 0 + 1 - 1 = 0 and that this conclusively proves that a life with nothingness at both ends is conclusively purposeless, empty and meaningless, given that it refers summarily to NOTHING.You may assert that, but it doesn't even come close to proving your assertion. Let's use your line of argument - even though, in my opinion, it's a really poor one - and use numbers and mathematically notations. Of course simple mathematics is a poor indication of such philosophical concepts that appear in this thread, but if we were to use mathematics to represent life, then the individual will be a number within a set. That is, rather than the perhaps silly notion that you've indicated (0 + 1), it's more: {Copulation between two individuals = new life} Society of any given number. Upon the death of the new life, even assuming the individual didn't reproduce and the parents have also died, it would then be: {New life}Society - new life = Society + effect "new life" had on society. Not exactly nothing, is it? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Mazaje, State The Purpose Of Your Life! by KAG: 11:03pm On May 05, 2010 |
Deep Sight:It seems to have taken its own course. I don't think my presence was as necessary as you may have thought. Deep Sight:So nothing, then. This gross celebration of a lack of self and all its components - is this Nirvana also not a fate worse than death? - is the true face of nihilism. It's understandable to fear death; it's not so understandable to forget that an end can focus meaning into a life. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Mazaje, State The Purpose Of Your Life! by KAG: 10:48am On May 05, 2010 |
Bastage:Sure, all things are open to interpretation, but that Nietzsche opposed nihilism in his works should indicate something of where he stood.No, Nietzsche was actually an existentialist.I believe that's open to interpretation. A lot of people will argue both corners. Some will vehemently deny it and some will say that he was. Me, I'd say that he was but that he was also an existentialist - I believe that the big problem with Nietzsche is that he tended to float about. One moment, nihilist, next existentialist, next post-modernist. There can be no doubt that he is well known for nihilism though. When you say he tended to float about, what exactly do you mean specifically? What I mean is, when was Nietzsche a nihilist? Surely you aren't referring to extracts from The Will to Power which was published by Nietzsche's sister and not him. In any case, yes, there's no doubt he's known for nihilism because he addressed the subject several times. Okay.Again, no. His philosophical ideas were incredibly sane. Yes, he had a mental breakdown - precipitated by the cruelty shown to a horse),"A mental breakdown"? The guy went totally insane. So we are agreed that an ad hominem shouldn't be one's major reason for dismissing a person's work? While I haven't read Thus yet, I am not aware of anywhere Nietzsche falsifies himself or destroys a previous argument he had made in the same text. You're right in stating that Nietzsche had a tendency to "rehypothesize", but one shouldn't forget or imply that the core tenets of his philosophy remained intact.but that ad hominem of yours shouldn't be used as an excuse to dismiss the validity of his writings.As to dismissing the validity of his writings - another problem with Nietzsche is that he dismissed a lot of them himself. He'd theorise but then destroy the concept a little later down the line. Yes, a lot of philosophers rehypothesize their work, but Nietzche teneded to do this quite often. It is therefore hard to take anything as valid when he himself had a habit of disowning his own theory. I have to admit that I find him infuriating - because of this, reading Thus Spake Zarathustra, I kept wondering if his heart was really in the work and wether or not he would repudiate it halfway through. To tell the truth, not only that but I found it incredibly hard to follow - I picked it up thinking it was going to be along the lines of Plato's Republic. How wrong I was. Like you stated: "True, Nietzsche's work was never meant to be used as such and he would probably have been horrified to find it abused. . ." That's the point. That he gave Goethe as a prime example of the Ubermensch should have been a big indicator to anyone of what he meant. He is not to be blamed for gross misreadings of his work.Finally, it may or may not be difficult to pick the "good" from the "bad" (whatever that means) in his works, but his influene on Hitler was arguably considerably less than the influence the likes of Martin Luther had on the Nazi leader.Right, but the Ubermensch/Untermensch theory did help to fuel the Nazi philosophy of Lebensraum, atrocity in Russia and the Holocaust. True, Nietzsche's work was never meant to be used as such and he would probably have been horrified to find it abused so but it does go to show how it can be misread. In that Greek tragedy helped to emphasise the value of the Olympians. It gave meaning to the life of the average Greek and more, as noted by Aristotle, tended to provide catharsis.Also, no, Greek tragedy wasn't about nihilism. Nietzsche being a brilliant philologist was probably one of the most aware of the facets of Greek tragedy - not that he was presenting a literal history in The Birth of TragedyHow so not about Nihilism? Nihilism was the counter-weight to the Olympian dream, was it not? Was not the "terror" in the quote a reference to nihilism? No, Greek tragedy wasn't counter to the Olympian dream - it was composed from a mixture of that dream and intoxication. No that's not what the terror in the quote referred If I have I'll put my hand up to that. But then as I'm no fan of Nietzsche, cut me some slack.Okay. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Mazaje, State The Purpose Of Your Life! by KAG: 10:19pm On May 04, 2010 |
Bastage:No, Nietzsche was actually an existentialist. and a lot of his philosophy is literally the delusion of a madman - he was certified insane aged 45. It's very hard to pick the good from the bad in his work. Adolf Hitler tried and look what happen there.Again, no. His philosophical ideas were incredibly sane. Yes, he had a mental breakdown - precipitated by the cruelty shown to a horse), but that ad hominem of yours shouldn't be used as an excuse to dismiss the validity of his writings. Finally, it may or may not be difficult to pick the "good" from the "bad" (whatever that means) in his works, but his influene on Hitler was arguably considerably less than the influence the likes of Martin Luther had on the Nazi leader. The Greeks were no different from their predecessors. Singling them out as the inventors of nihilism (which was what Greek Tragedy basically was) to give self-affirmation shows how little Nietzche was aware of the subject.Oh, but the Greeks were different from their predecessors; but, that wasn't the point being made here. The point was: humans have a tendency to devise gods (the Olympians) and assigned motives to them to bear the vicissitudes of life. Also, no, Greek tragedy wasn't about nihilism. Nietzsche being a brilliant philologist was probably one of the most aware of the facets of Greek tragedy - not that he was presenting a literal history in The Birth of Tragedy Since the dawn of time, man has been looking for meaning.Yes. Interestingly, Nietzche also stated that the decline of Christianity fuelled nihilism. That seems to stand at odds with the original quote - the dream of Olympus fuelled Tragedy and therefore nihilism. My opinion is that nihilism is more fuelled or extinguished by culture rather than spirituality.You've read the earlier quote all wrong. Nietzche's philosophy on Eternal Recurrence has always been of great interest to me though. It's also an interesting theory to throw into this discussion.Yes, I agree. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Mazaje, State The Purpose Of Your Life! by KAG: 8:54pm On May 04, 2010 |
Deep Sight:"The Greek knew and felt the terror and horror of existence. That he might endure this terror at all, he had to interpose between himself and life the radiant dream-birth of the Olympians. . ." (The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche) |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Of Singularities And Infinities. . Deep Sight, Welcome! by KAG: 11:03pm On Nov 04, 2009 |
Deep Sight:"Created" was certainly not the term I used. To refer back to the previous thread (you know, the one where I was hoping you'd explain things like "totality of time", etc followed by evidence or data for something of the sort), I wrote (amongst other things): "To be clear, the reference point of time as we know it is this universe, and is affected by the big bang because as far can be told right now, we discover Planck time and then "no time" as we head backwards. Essentially, time and space are bound together." Of course, if one is proposing a time free universe then the argument takes on a different shape. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: KAG WHERE ARE YOU? by KAG: 4:14pm On Nov 04, 2009 |
Deep Sight:Why? If this thread is anything like the previous one where you pointedly refused to offer anything tangible - by way of evidence, or even something akin to a syllogism, etc - then I can't afford to waste what little free time I have. I might drop in at some point, though. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Charles Darwin's 10 Mistakes by KAG: 8:58pm On Oct 29, 2009 |
sunnykiss:That wasn't a theory of Darwin's. While he did ponder on possibilities of life arising naturally, he, at most, stopped at contemplation in a book separate from that that contained major theories. Not that it matters anyway. I say it doesn't matter, because there are tentative finds that give sustenance to the idea that life could have arisen naturally. 2. Simplicity of the cell theory: Scientists have discovered that cells are tremendously complex, not simple.I don't remember Darwin saying cells were simple. Could you perhaps provide the text in which he made such a claim? 3. Theory about the cell’s simple information: It turns out cells have a digital code more complex and lengthy than any computer language made by man.Same as above. By the way, I don't think cells have a digital code. 4. Theory of intermediate fossils: Where are the supposed billions of missing links in the evolutionary chain?He was right about the finding of fossils of intermediate species, sub-species, etc. Good examples that can be discussed are the dinosaur-bird transitionals - e.g. microraptor gui, archeopteryx, et al.; tiktaalik; Turkana boy; and so on. No one but Creationists armed with strawmen ever expects to find billions of fossils. It's made even more obvious that this is the case, when one realises that we don't have even close to one billion fossils of anything. Hmm, using the logic of creationsts, I guess that means only few organisms have ever lived. Weird. 5. Theory of the variation of species: Genetic adaptation and mutation have proven to have fixed limits.This is vague and makes little sense as it is. Care to elaborate? 6. Theory of the Cambrian Explosion: This sudden appearance of most major complex animal groups at the same low level of the fossil record is still an embarrassment to evolutionists.That's a strawman or a lie. We'll find out which it is, if this discussion continues. The appearances were neither sudden nor embarrassing. 7. Theory of homology: Similarity of structures does not mean the evolution of structures.No, but shared, unique similarities in the same positions, and nested hierarchies indicate the evolution of shared structures. 8. Theory of ape evolution: Chimpanzees have not evolved into anything else. Neither has man.Yes, and nobody expects them to evolve into anything else. 9. Theory of the tree of life: Rather than all life branching from a single organism, evidence has revealed a forest of life from the very beginning.Although the debate still rages, I agree with this one. In my opinion, Darwin was wrong to postulate a tree, and it was most likely a forest of life. That is, while a tree signifies a neat progression from earlier species to more recent ones, all sharing common ancestry. The reality is that, given the way nature operates, some species that may have branched off may have crossed with antecedents, and even more bizarre cross-species mating and reproduction would have occurred. 10. Rejection of an intelligent designer: This opened the door for many to reject God, the Bible and Christianity.[/b]Darwin chose to work within the realm of science. He wasn't wrong to do that. Incidentally, Darwin was still a Christian when he formulated the theory of evolution (it took the death of his daughter to make him agnostic), and, I believe, Wallace was one, too. All which suggest that the theory of evolution needn't be a reason to reject gods, as their non-existence takes care of that nicely instead. 1 out of 10. That's a terrible score. You must do better next time. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Evolutionist Please Explain by KAG: 8:34pm On Oct 29, 2009 |
No2Atheism:Not quite. The reports are that the Bianco exhibit is a replica of one that was rumoured to have been found in Turkey. That no one has or had seen the actual remains didn't stop the propagation of the rumour as fact. Hey, this lying for Jesus sure does catch on quick, doesn't it? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Evolutionist Please Explain by KAG: 8:32pm On Oct 29, 2009 |
No2Atheism:It also says there was a talking snake that tempted a woman to eat a forbidden fruit. Heck, it also talks about a zombie deity that sacrificed himself to himself to save humyns from some arbitrary punishment. 2. Archeaologists find evidences of such giants in terms of their skeletal remains.Source? Reputable source, that is. 3. According to evolution, such things ought not to exist since evolutionists are supposed to have evolved from something simpler (and thus invariably smaller e.g. monkeys, baboons, gorillas, oboo, innaki, etc) . . .Nonsense! No where does the theory of evolution state that giganticism is impossible. Further, humyns didn't evolve from any of those things you mentioned. 4. What does evolution have to say for itself . . .That you're easily misled? 5. How does evolution try to explain away the evidence of these Human Giants (which are technically not supposed to exist)I lol'ed at the deleted pictures. It's an interesting thing that I knew what pictures would be in this thread before I opened it. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Beginning Of The Universe-The Big Bang Theory by KAG: 7:44pm On Oct 02, 2009 |
Deep Sight:Funny thing, it wasn't the "originators of the theory" that coined the term big bang, it was someone in opposition to the theory - Fred Hoyle - that coined the term - dismissively, I might add. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Beginning Of The Universe-The Big Bang Theory by KAG: 5:32pm On Oct 02, 2009 |
Deep Sight:First, a boundless space - or even universe - is not necessarily synonymous with infinite. Space will remain boundless whether the universe is infinite or not. Second, the boundless properties of space doesn't mean it isn't contingent on inflation and the big bang. Finally, as I have intimated earlier, the universe itself is boundless. Does that shed some perspective on what the universe is expanding into?No. Since you're assured the universe is expanding into something, why don't tell us what it is, define what that thing is, and give some kind of evidence or mathematical showing for that thing? And don't say space or you'd have started on the wrong footing. Note the second bit: "three dimensional extent in which objects and events occur."No. See above. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Beginning Of The Universe-The Big Bang Theory by KAG: 4:34pm On Oct 02, 2009 |
bawomolo:While he did disagree with several postulates of quantum mechanics, he wouldn't have - didn't - frown on the big bang theory. Bobbyaf:An expansion. Order can be produced from an explosion, though. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Beginning Of The Universe-The Big Bang Theory by KAG: 4:30pm On Oct 02, 2009 |
Deep Sight:This is adequate: "Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space) |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Beginning Of The Universe-The Big Bang Theory by KAG: 1:43am On Oct 01, 2009 |
Deep Sight:What is this "totality of time itself, which is infinite, etc", of which you speak? Where is the evidence or data for it? Time may very well be a construct of the human mind, but as it stands the evidence points to something existing independent of views and, instead, dependent on space. 2. What if at this very second, as we speak, another big bang is going off outside our universe, bringing another universe into being? Do you not see the possibility that our Universe is existing within an already existing larger "Space" and that every new "bang" that occurs is a bang within already existent time and space? To crystalize this for you: Let's imagine a civilization on a far off planet within this universe that was so primitive that they thought that their galaxy was all there was to the universe. For them, they would imagine time began when their galaxy was formed. They would not realize that their galaxy was just one within a universe already existing in a steady state of time! So i ask you: what if our universe is just like that: existing within ONE larger MULTIVERSE! If that is the case, surely, time could not be said to be created by the bang that made this universe. Rather, time would be an already existing steady state..Yawn. I wrote this earlier as a response to you: "Not quite. If there are other universes with time, those universes would have a different time structure from ours. However, to use an analogy, that that there be liquids on other planets and "water" in other universes, doesn't change the fact that water on Earth is formed from a particular bonding of hydrogen and oxygen. To be clear, the reference point of time as we know it is this universe, and is affected by the big bang because as far can be told right now, we discover Planck time and then "no time" as we head backwards. Essentially, time and space are bound together." In any case, space is inseparable from our universe. The universe wouldn't be expanding into space. If there is anything beyond our universe, it would be branes, not space. 3. Want to change your understanding of time? Uncle Einstein was only human you know, and yes, i know the enormity of the scientific thinking that i am up against.If I'm given good reason to change my understanding, then yes. SO far all you've offered are gross misunderstanding and homilies. I think I'll stick with the science community and the evidence on this one. You have still not been able to answer this question:Yeah, I understand that it's easier to debate someone when you don't bother to read what they wrote, but it's just bad form to make it so plain. Here's the response I wrote earlier. You can read it now: "The universe is probably not expanding into anything. If the universe is all there is, [then] it is just expanding and space is derivative of the expansion within the universe. There would be nothing outside of the universe." Just so you understand, no, there doesn't have to be a space into which it has to expand. Space itself is caused by the expansion of the universe. It is within the universe. Let's be brilliant enough to think beyond what Einstein and co have fed the world.Let's. I say stars are cause by pixie dust. What say you? Elves? I am bold enough.I'm bold enough to at least engage with what you write and not ignore things - especially the most egregious ones - you have written. Are you bold enough to actually understand the science and concepts that at play here? This is not just "let's spite 'Einstein and co', spout rubbish, pat ourselves and feel we've accomplished a day's work". You can start by presenting a concrete argument with evidence for an infinite, extra-universe "totality of time", or whatever. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Beginning Of The Universe-The Big Bang Theory by KAG: 12:52am On Oct 01, 2009 |
Deep Sight:That, or it means, given the context of what I wrote: "Tangible: 2 able to be grasped by the mind. 3 real or definite (Dictionary: http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=Tangible&title=21st&sourceid=Mozilla-search). You're welcome. Can time be grasped by the human mind? Is it real? I say yes. You went further to state that time is contingent. Do you think that time is something that can fail to be in existence at any point? What really do you understand by the word "time"?It is dependent on the existence of space in the universe, and if one, for some reason, refuses to subscribe to the findings of Einstein, Lorentz, et al. then it is, at the very least dependent on entropy. Hopefully, those should give you an idea of what I mean by time at its most basic and general. If i might ask you a question. If you belive that the Big Bang created Time, you of course also belive that it created space.I accept that the the big bang occurred beyond time and that space came about as a result of inflation. There was no creation; just occurrence. The universe is probably not expanding into anything. If the universe is all there is, it is just expanding and space is derivative of the expansion within the universe. There would be nothing outside of the universe. Finally, space is contingent as well. I don't think you know the science you're trying to argue against here. GBAM Again!!![quote]What was there before the big bang? Metaphorically speaking in human terms - one second before the Big bang was still a point in time, no?What letter comes before the letter "A" in the English alphabet? Finite thinking. Limiting yourself based on language formulas, good grief! What about numbers? What comes before zero in numerics? Yes. . . -1, -2, -3, up to infinity. . . never ending sequence. . . Get it? ? ?[/quote]Oh dear, talk about completely missing the point! There was a reason I used the analogy. If numbers had what I was describing, I would have used them. Since it appears my point may have been too subtle, I'll be more explicit. Asking what time there was before the big bang is akin to asking for the letter that appears before the letter "A" in the English alphabet. The question simply makes no sense in that given paradigm. There is no time beyond the big bang because spatial dimension and change would have only begun after the big bang and inflation. By the way, I'm hoping you now realise that your numbers debacle is a red herring. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Do You Believe In Heaven And Hell Fire? by KAG: 11:16pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
"Dante, I think, committed a crude blunder when, with a terror-inspiring ingenuity, he placed above the gateway of his hell the inscription "I too was created by eternal love"—at any rate, there would be more justification for placing above the gateway to the Christian Paradise and its "eternal bliss" the inscription "I too was created by eternal hate"—provided a truth may be placed above the gateway to a lie!" - Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Beginning Of The Universe-The Big Bang Theory by KAG: 10:48pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
Deep Sight:Nonsense. Did you even read what you wrote? Time is in fact tangible and contingent. Irrespective of one's scientific take on time, accepting it as anything other than a factor within our universe is unfounded. That is, from a scientific (and even metaphysical) point of view, whether one views time as a dimension or a human construct in lieu of change, it is contingent on the universe - our universe. It's reference point in fact cannot be this universe and the big bang, - what if there are other universes out there? Would we state that time does not exist there? ? ?Not quite. If there are other universes with time, those universes would have a different time structure from ours. However, to use an analogy, that that there be liquids on other planets and "water" in other universes, doesn't change the fact that water on Earth is formed from a particular bonding of hydrogen and oxygen. To be clear, the reference point of time as we know it is this universe, and is affected by the big bang because as far can be told right now, we discover Planck time and then "no time" as we head backwards. Essentially, time and space are bound together. What was there before the big bang? Metaphorically speaking in human terms - one second before the Big bang was still a point in time, no?What letter comes before the letter "A" in the English alphabet? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Beginning Of The Universe-The Big Bang Theory by KAG: 7:35pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
kolaxy:That's a load of nonsense. First, the Big Bang theory (which is upon what this thread is supposed to be based) isn't an atheistic concept, so much as it is secular in its scientific scope. Many theists accept it as the best explanation for the origin of the universe, while several atheists reject it or are agnostic or apathetic towards its merits. Second, what the hell do eggs have to do with the big bang theory? Yes, I know it you may have meant it metaphorically, but it just came out all wrong, didn't it? In any case, no the big bang theory doesn't state that the big bang resulted from a previous universe - that's the "Big Bounce". Further, no, explanations for beyond the big bang don't "assume the pre-existence of the natural laws, time, space and energy." In fact, from can and has been observed, classical laws break down as we approach Planck time; time was started by the big bang and may have even began after the inflation of space. Third, knowing these things are not beyond the scope of human abilities. While some of them are known, found or/and theorised through mathematical and simulation models, some are found through the study of the behaviour of space and objects out there. Finally, um, I don't know where the Bleep you get your ideas from, but science doesn't deny the existence of faith. There's no doubt that faith of different levels and tempers exist. Your straw-men in your op have been pretty silly, to be frank. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: What Is The Purpose Of Life According To Atheism? by KAG: 7:15pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
What Is The Purpose Of Life According To Atheism?Amor Fati |
| Christianity Etc › Re: God's Grand Plan by KAG: 7:14pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
Deep Sight:No, it isn't. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Most Famous Atheist Philosopher Abandon Atheism? by KAG: 7:14pm On Sep 25, 2009 |
The Most Famous Atheist Philosopher Abandon Atheism?Nietzsche came back to life and stopped being an atheist? What the . . . Oh, you were just using hyperbole. Nest thread, the most famous theist becomes an atheist. Carry on. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: How Long Was The First Day Of Creation by KAG: 10:18pm On Sep 20, 2009 |
Tudór:Myths are generally not lies - at least, technically. And they are certainly not all lies. Bobbyaf:Um, I don't think you've thought it all the way through. Short of probably a few bacteria, no living thing on Earth can survive the type of cold caused by the lack of a sun for minutes, let alone twenty four hours. So, no, it doesn't have to be a literal twenty four hours, nor does anything have to be mature as they'd be dead in minutes anyway. By the way, no, it isn't cold that is an absence of heat, it's heat that is an absence of coldness. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: How Long Was The First Day Of Creation by KAG: 3:00am On Sep 18, 2009 |
mazaje:I disagree. From what I understand, the creation accounts were originally written and presented in a poetic form that inclines one to read them as a mythos created to challenge the creation accounts (i.e. also allegories) of the Jews neighbours. The focus of the Genesis myths weren't to give an historical account but to edify the god(s) of the Israelites or whatever they were at the time. They were often read as in that way. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: How Long Was The First Day Of Creation by KAG: 11:29pm On Sep 17, 2009 |
Atheists:You're reading the story wrong. It's meant to be an allegory. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Christian And Atheist; What You Need To Know About Maturity/puberty Age by KAG: 11:27pm On Sep 17, 2009 |
Abuzola:Wait, so you're saying it's okay to have sex with an eight years old or even five year old (actually younger than five, considering she gave birth at five) as long as she's had her period? You really don't see anything wrong with that concept? This is your argument for Islam? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Should Inteligent Design (creation) Be To Regarded As Science. by KAG: 7:15pm On Aug 14, 2009 |
wirinet:No. At least not until the intelligent design crowd present potentially falsifiable data, (potential) experiments for their claims and utterances, and stop believing that attacking other science theories validates their so-far pseudo-science. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Has Atheism Taken Over Nl by KAG: 7:11pm On Aug 14, 2009 |
Prizm:Oh, it's a fair point that sometimes people cling dogmatically to their preset definitions of terms, but I suspect that even in spite of that, with definitions already given, by both parties, for thorny words, those in the discussion would, at the very least, know what the other means to say when a vagueish term is used. Also, you'll note that it is now, with this post that you have defined a triangle in such strict way as to avoid any misconception of what you mean. With your previous definition - "[anything that has] three sides with angles that add up to 180 degrees" - a square could have been mistaken for a triangle (after all, three of its sides do add up to 180), thereby ensuring that you and another talk past each other. That happens quite a bit. The first premiss is not to be understood as saying “everything has to be caused” instead it is saying that an entity needs a cause or explanation if and only if it has a beginning. To further expatiate on the first premiss, nothing comes out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing; or to simply state it “Being does not come from non-being.” So we are not talking of material causes here only but efficient causes as well. If things could really spontaneously pop into existence from nothing by nothing then there is no reason why any and everything doesn’t spontaneously pop into existence all the time. So, there is no fear that while you are busy typing away at your pc, jackals could be popping into existence in the room next door and defiling the carpet or furniture. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that horses, watches, Darwin, erasers could pop into existence anywhere, anytime out of nothing, from nothing and by nothing. To argue against this will be to strain credulity. The first premise is more plausible than its negation. This is empirically confirmed constantly in science.Yes, I know what the first premise states: "Anything with a beginning has cause." It's wrong. By the way, you're operating on a false premise. That is, that some things, given a quantum fluctuation, etc. may pop into existence spontaneously is not an indication that everything and anything will or should. No, that's a nonsense argument. That particles can be in a state of indeterminacy doesn't mean the moon disappears when I turn my back on it. Also, the "law" "energy can neither be created nor destroyed" was "empirically confirmed by science" until it wasn't. The arguments for virtual particles and radioactive decay are actually scientific findings. Now, all too often atheists who realize that they cannot argue with the second premise find that they have to cling dogmatically to the first premise hoping that it could be subverted. They cite recent work in modern quantum physics. According to some interpretations of quantum physics, there are events that are spontaneous events and do not have deterministic causes. This is not an authentic counterexample because this applies to just some interpretations; in some interpretations some subatomic realities are fully deterministic. You will be assuming without justification the truth of an indeterministic premiss. At any rate, virtual particles do not come into being from nothing by nothing uncaused—rather they are fluctuations of the vacuum energy at that quantum level. Indeed as this fluctuation creates these virtual particles, we find that they appear and quickly disappear into the quantum vacuum (this quantum vacuum is NOT nothing rather a turbulent ‘sea’ of energy).Um, not quite. They are perfect counter-examples because they show that the first premise of your argument - the cosmological argument, and other subsets and antecedents - has been falsified. Yes, quantum fluctuations precede virtual particles, but there is no apparent cause for them. And once again, that space isn't a vacuum doesn't impact on the case of virtual particles. It isn't cause by anything in the vacuum of space. |
