this is a dialogue I had with an atheist on CARM months ago. I just found it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undead2 View Post
Remember, Zhavric is the one who states that we know it is impossible for God to exist based on things proved by science.
Zhavric:It is. In just the same way that it's impossible for Superman to be real due to what we know about physics and biology. The only reason you think god is possible is that you've invoked an armful of special pleadings that allow you to ignore aspects of science. In effect, your argument for god when applied to Superman would be, "The laws of science don't apply to Superman... cuz he's Superman lol." Sorry, but that doesn't work.
Metacrock
Now, you are throwing around the word law a great deal, so why don't we define scientific law, just for clarification?
Scientific Law: A rule that describes a pattern in nature.
Now that that is done, let's address your questions
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
So where are these laws of physics kept?
They aren't "kept" They are ideas, and patterns. I don't ask you were the laws of mathematics are kept, or those of logic either. They simply are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Where do they reside? How can there be disembodied laws without some sort of mind to make them be laws?
Once again, they simply reside. You are confusing criminal law with scientific law. Matter interacts with other bits of matter in a consistent, and patterned way. We observe these patterns, and write them down as laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
What makes them work?
Once again, they are the patterns of how nature interacts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
How can there be laws of physics before a universe exists?
There weren't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the laws of physics did not apply until a bit after the Big Bang
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
iF the universe has to have laws to cause it and shape and determine how it will be, where are these laws when there is no universe. when all there is a singularity and that is infinitesimal. where they laws? What makes them be laws?
singularity was the Universe, was it not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Law are drafted by minds.
True. Patterns are formed regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
6) A mind that contians physical law can be said to be creator and thus God. Therefore,if we assume physical law there must be a "lawgiver," therefore, God exists QED
I thought you were better than this. There needn't be a lawgiver. The laws are descriptions, by which we postulate how materials will interact. Should something disobey these laws, then the laws are revised, as they are meant to not make exceptions.
__________________
In case you are confused, I'm an atheist, and I say there is no God.
and yes, I really am 14.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheKnight View Post
Now, you are throwing around the word law a great deal, so why don't we define scientific law, just for clarification?
Scientific Law: A rule that describes a pattern in nature.
first of all, why didn't you chide Z for saying that laws are prescriptive? Z says things have to obey laws of physics and there is no chance of violating it, why are you not telling Z how foolish that is?
Quote:
Now that that is done, let's address your questions
They aren't "kept" They are ideas, and patterns. I don't ask you were the laws of mathematics are kept, or those of logic either. They simply are.
so? what do the descriptions describe before there's anything to describe?
Quote:
Once again, they simply reside.
where? what "resides?" where do they reside when there's no universe to reside in? where in the universe do they reside?
Quote:
You are confusing criminal law with scientific law. Matter interacts with other bits of matter in a consistent, and patterned way. We observe these patterns, and write them down as laws.
then why can't there be miracles? Why don't we see whole universes popping up in front of our eyes?
Quote:
Once again, they are the patterns of how nature interacts.
so where is the pattern when nature is nothing but a mathematical construct in a single point?
Quote:
There weren't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the laws of physics did not apply until a bit after the Big Bang
singularity was the Universe, was it not?
not what Odenwald says. I quote him saying "presumably there have to be laws to bring the universe about."
Quote:
True. Patterns are formed regardless.
how does that bring the universe into being?
Quote:
I thought you were better than this. There needn't be a lawgiver. The laws are descriptions, by which we postulate how materials will interact. Should something disobey these laws, then the laws are revised, as they are meant to not make exceptions.
I thought you were better than this? saying a description is just recursive because there is no way to describe waht does not yet exist? what guides things into being if there aren't any things to describe?
what is to stop miracles from happening?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
first of all, why didn't you chide Z for saying that laws are prescriptive? Z says things have to obey laws of physics and there is no chance of violating it, why are you not telling Z how foolish that is?
Quote:
Because I do not often have the pleasure of speaking to Zharvic.
you could
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
so? what do the descriptions describe before there's anything to describe?
Quote:
Nothing. Stop being so childish about. Mind you, they still speak of how matter interacts.
you stop being childish and try making an arguemnt instead of trying to worm out of recursion. All you are saying is that whatever happen however it happens it's just there for no reason but for no reason miracles can't hapepn. why ? You don't offer a reason you just demand that they can't. they try to cop out by calling that "descriptive."
obviously, there is no doubt there can be no argument! If something is merely a discretion of what happens,the the describer has a limited perspective, then the description could be wrong and there could more to describe.
obvious!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
where? what "resides?" where do they reside when there's no universe to reside in? where in the universe do they reside?
Quote:
An abstract thought can not exist in physical form. The laws of physics do not apply until there is a universe.
so what is it an abstraction of? It's an abstraction of a description. But that does not tell us why there can't be miracles? why! you don't offer a reason you just assert all will be well if you just have faith in the great naturalistic ideology and stop asking questions.
just saying it's an abstraction is a cop out. That doesn't tell us anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
then why can't there be miracles? Why don't we see whole universes popping up in front of our eyes?
Quote:
There can be miracles, but only once. After that, they are incorporated into the descriptions of nature, the hallmark of science.
you are trying to reduce miracles to natural events. That doesn't explain why there can't be miracles in the conventional sense of something that contradicts our conventional understanding of what happens.
We don't see whole universe "popping up" because that's not how things work.
obviously recursion. what's the difference in "that's not how things work" and saying there's some barrier to certain kinds of thigns coming about? Because you have still have to expalin why things work as they do and you have not.
why would that exclude say prary working to heal people in ways that usually don't happen?
why do you Isis that ideas which are put forward by major physicists are stupid yet you persist in seeming to worship physicists as authoritative for all knowledge?
Quote:
There is a set amount of matter and energy in the universe, and any other universe must exist outside of this one. So, we wouldn't be able to see them.
I don't see how that answers anything I asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
so where is the pattern when nature is nothing but a mathematical construct in a single point?
Quote:
Within that construct. Why is that hard?
you already said that abstractions are not real, they just ideas in the mind, that is all constructs are. So how can it both be real, determine the way things are, not be prescriptive and just be a description, yet one that limites what hapepns, and yet it's also an abstraction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
not what Odenwald says. I quote him saying "presumably there have to be laws to bring the universe about."
Quote:
Laws always exist, but do not apply until the Universe exists. Universe is eternal (though constantly changing form) Thus laws always there. Matter acts with matter, BB.
that makes less sense than before.
(1) if they exist but don't apply where do they exist when all that dose exist is just an abstraction. do you think abstractions are concrete and real?
(2) how do they apply if they are merely descriptive? what do they do while they are not applying?
(3) when you say changing form, what kind of changing of form would they do when they are nothing more than abstractions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
how does that bring the universe into being?
Quote:
I don't understand, patterns don't create universes, they are descriptions.
then how can the universe come to be if there is no causes, no laws of cause and effect? what makes it happen when there's nothing to make it happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
I thought you were better than this? saying a description is just recursive because there is no way to describe waht does not yet exist? what guides things into being if there aren't any things to describe?
you didn't answer
what is to stop miracles from happening?
Quote:
Apparently Meta, you think that things will not act a certain way until we observe them doing such. That is silly. The laws are our descriptions of matter's interaction. Matter will always act that way.
why would they act in a certain way and not be able to act in contradictory ways? If there are no prescriptive laws of nature, what's to stop contradictory things?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
you could
Quote:
I could, yes, but I choose not to.
why not? Don't you think old Z deserves to know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
obviously, there is no doubt there can be no argument! If something is merely a discretion of what happens,the the describer has a limited perspective, then the description could be wrong and there could more to describe.
obvious!
Quote:
This my friend is called science. It is open to change, because it recognizes the incapabilities of our perspectives.
then how can you be so sure that physical are merely descriptive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
so what is it an abstraction of? It's an abstraction of a description. But that does not tell us why there can't be miracles? why! you don't offer a reason you just assert all will be well if you just have faith in the great naturalistic ideology and stop asking questions.
Quote:
just saying it's an abstraction is a cop out. That doesn't tell us anything.
no,you already stated its an abstraction.I said where is it when there's no universe you said its just an abstraction of a let of descriptions that aren't applicable yet. so you opened the door to the definition.
Quote:
At the bottom, I will try to explain why matter always will act the way it does. There can be miracles Meta, you just need a very large amount of proof to support them.
(1) that contradicts what you said above: (a) that "this is science its all open" now you are so sure how it "has" to be, but that's not open, that's a contradiction. (b) you are trying to have it both ways. you are trying to say certain things must always happen in certain ways, but onlk as a description. That is simply a contradiction.
(2) there is a great deal of evdience for miracles. 4000 remarkbale cases at Lourdes alone.
(3) I don't see an explaination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
you are trying to reduce miracles to natural events. That doesn't explain why there can't be miracles in the conventional sense of something that contradicts our conventional understanding of what happens.
They have to be natural in order to be possible. The whole point is something can contradict our current understanding, but to prove it did, you need a great deal of evidence.
woOOOOOOooe Holy contradiction Batman. they have to be natural to be possible.
that is not a description! you can't make pronouncements about possiblities and you can't set limits upon what is possible if natural laws are merely descritions. what you take to be a description could change with the next observation.
You have not expanded by there has to be a "lot" of evidence, and how much? why can't one miracle do it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
obviously recursion. what's the difference in "that's not how things work" and saying there's some barrier to certain kinds of thigns coming about? Because you have still have to expalin why things work as they do and you have not.
Quote:
I will, see bottom.
yea???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
why would that exclude say prary working to heal people in ways that usually don't happen?
ZIt is a silly ideal, and assumes someone listening to your prayers, and acting on them.
MetacrockYea? so? what's silly about it? that's your little relative standard. what can you possibly use to prove that it's silly? why should it be? You are assuming from the outset you get to beg the question you get to lionize your opinion. you've already contradicted yourself now you are tryign truth by stipulation.
since there is no prescriptive laws then there's reason why there should be any standard for what is silly and what isn't.
the name this informal fallacy you are trying to pull is called ipsie dixit. that means "truth by stipulation."
in seeming to worship physicists as authoritative for all knowledge?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
why do you Isis that ideas which are put forward by major physicists are stupid yet you persist
Quote:Z
I don't worship physicists as authoritative figures.
right, just the white lab coats right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
you already said that abstractions are not real, they just ideas in the mind, that is all constructs are. So how can it both be real, determine the way things are, not be prescriptive and just be a description, yet one that limites what hapepns, and yet it's also an abstraction?
Z: The laws themselves are descriptions, OK? How matter interacts, however, is real. Our interpretation of these interactions is the basis of these laws.
MetacrockOur interpretations are the basis of laws. But we can only interpret what we see right? So can we see the universe before the big bang? So where are the laws before the universe comes to be?
If the laws don't determine what happens (didn't you say before you are a determinist?) if the laws don't' determine things, then why can't there be miracles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
then how can the universe come to be if there is no causes, no laws of cause and effect? what makes it happen when there's nothing to make it happen?
Quote:Z
you didn't answer
Interactions are constant, our descriptions of them constantly change.
Meta:how can they change when you state so confidently above that everything has to turn out a certain way? That's not change that would require stasis.
you have not yet explained how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
If there are no prescriptive laws of nature, what's to stop contradictory things?
Quote:Zaravic
Identity.
Meta:Identity? But isn't that a law? So it's a discretion. so it change so then it could allow things to be contradictory, so in what sense does identity stop contradictions?
Unless you want to go back to thing have to turn out a certain way, then you can expalin to me how a set of law that make sure things turn out a certain way and a prescriptive set of laws are not the same thing?
Quote:Zaravic
Why Matter Will Always Act the Way it Does
For this, I will assume logic, namely the identity property of all things.
OK, Meta's apparent problem is what is stopping things from acting ambiguously? What keeps things acting consistently.
My answer, Meta, is Identity. Consider compound A in conditions C. We apply compound A to compound B. What is created is compound D, as well as energy of the amount E.
When we do this again, apply A to B in C, we get D and E. If we did not get D and E in conditions C, then we know either A or B in our second experiment is not representative of A or B in the first experiment. The identity of substances keeps them from acting ambiguously. Does that satisfy you Meta?
Meta: how do you establish identity as a set formula without first having a prescriptive law of identity? Otherwise a can be non a at the same place/time because with no prescriptive laws, and you did say above it can change, what's to stop identity from changing?
No comments:
Post a Comment