bohm

Joined

• started 191 topics
• posted 7,847 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by bohm

• 
  87

  How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

  by darkl1ght3r in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

  step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

  all effects require a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Indeed, in these debates i often wonder what the hell i am talking about...

  As i understand BTS and DD, they seem to distinguish between 'our' universe, ie. the space-time and mass/energy that came into existence (lets not split hair here) in the big bang, the laws of physics we are governed by, etc and 'Gods' universe (what i call the 'meta-universe') that seem to be 'eternal' (what that means) and may follow a different set of rules.

  I want to add that the existence of such an universe is not something i am convinced off is a given thing; infact i can feel i want to avoid it in every way because it seem like a very ugly concept to invent a universe as a 'deux ex machina' that fix every problem! But this is way above my paygrade and i dont want to commit to one side or another on that question.
  However, since BTS and DD use these constructs i assume they exist and see where that leave us. Personally, i dont feel the existence of a meta-universe is the weakest link, it is why such a thing would be God.

  When i wrote your definition was a 'poor' i think you misunderstood me since english is not my first language. I ment to imply: 'You MAY be right Darklighters definition is not the right one in the context of this discussion'.

  The definition you use is also the one i would normally use in a different setting. I also think i made it clear that i believe the definition is consistent and i fail to see why it provide a contradiction as DD seem to imply; that is at least what i ment to write.
• 
  87

  How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

  by darkl1ght3r in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

  step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

  all effects require a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  First a general note: Infinite TIME is very difficult to imagine because we have a very hard-wired intuition about time. Infinite SPACE is much easier, and since space and time are just coordinates it is not that artificial to try to swap the concepts.

  We can easily imagine infinite space; through most of the 20th century people thought space was infinite! Our space-version of Kants argument would, i imagine, be that a ray of light (its location being the 'current moment' in Kants article) that had passed through that infinite space could not be; it would have had to pass through an infinite amount of space to be where it is, and each portion of space it pass (each of kants 'tick of the clock') has a finite length. Thus it is the same basic problem, just with space instead of time.

  Personally i dont see why Kants argument does not apply to our ray of light, and i do not see why a ray of light passing through an infinite universe is impossible; infact i would offer that in Kants argument of infinite amount of addition we keep assuming the ray of light must have an origin which we, per construction, assume it has not.
• 
  87

  How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

  by darkl1ght3r in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

  step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

  all effects require a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  DD: ... and i begin with a third set of presuppositions. I will not go into the inside-outside the universe debate since i feel it is splitting hairs. It is Darklighters statement not mine, and i am not really familiar with the variation of string theory you describe.

  My original statement was that i feel an argument about 'cause' and 'effect' quickly become circular since the common definition of the two words rely on each other strongly... i wrote about that to some length, and i stand by those points - in particular that i feel you use 'cause' and 'effect' to create a tautology, and what is left is "therefore there exist a first cause"; if you had just written that was your presupposition i would have no problems, the problem is what i see as a very poor type of argument.

  But i have to bite on darklighters statement. Darklighter DEFINE the universe to be "all that exist" (what i call the 'meta-universe' and what some would call 'God'). In that case, surely he can not be in error when he write "So there really is no "outside" of this universe" , he defined the universe to be 'all' so if there WAS something outside the universe it would, per definition, be 'in' the universe! surely you must agree to that?

  That definition of 'universe' may be a poor one, but at least he provide one - if you follow these debates that is what i mostly ask people to do; provide proper definitions (see: cause, effect, regression, infinite, eternal, ...). I know it sound pedantic, but it is impossible to have a discussion when we dont know what each other mean.
• 
  68

  What Are Some Of The Dumbest Beliefs JW's Have?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i know there are a lot.. one belief i never understood is that blood fractions might be ok for a christian but not "whole blood".

  to me the "blood doctrine" is ridiculous from a scriptural point of view..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  That a scripture about the antichrist applies to someone who eats a birthdaycake.
• 
  34

  Michael Jursa (British Museum) and 587 vs. 607 B.C.

  by Dogpatch in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this was sent to me as a comment for free minds.

  the author says, i'm not sure if you are aware of this fact or not: if you look at the awake!

  may 2009 pg 11 , it says that jerusalem siege was in 607, according to professor michael jursa working in the british museum, but curiously if you go to the british museum official webpage, (in "search" put michael jursa) you ll see that it says the siege of jerusalen was in 587 bc !!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  I have to agree with BB. Deceptive? no doubt. A lie? no.
  Just the usual BS.
• 
  87

  How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

  by darkl1ght3r in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

  step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

  all effects require a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  So there is a destinction between 'Eternal' and 'Infinite'. It raise a few questions:

  1) What is the definitions of those two things. Infinite would (to me) mean there is no end to the time-dimension. What does external mean?

  2) Is God then not infinite?

  3) Why can 'eternal' not be applied to the 'meta-universe'? Is God not causal or something like that?
• 
  87

  How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

  by darkl1ght3r in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

  step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

  all effects require a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  BTS: The idea of a infinite, eternal, larger universe (lets call it the meta-universe for now and lets call whatever we live in the 'universe') is very repulsive to me on many levels. I think it is horrible. i offer it with no evidence to back it up, and while i can speculate causality does not hold in my 'imaginative universe', well, it feels very ugly to.

  However, if the problem of infinite regress applies to the meta-universe, why not to God? God is eternal (so the bible say), and he created our universe; I see no reasons why any 'infinite' problems that apply to the meta-universe should not apply to God?
• 
  87

  How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

  by darkl1ght3r in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

  step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

  all effects require a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  BTS: And no, no special pleading here. If an uncaused cause did not begin to exist (i.e. is eternal) then it doesn't need a cause; and exactly the same applies for the Universe. If the Universe is eternal, then it doesn't need a cause either. This is why the argument is actually not special pleading for "God", because this reasoning has been used by many atheists for natural Universe itself.

  Thank you for taking the challenge.
  The bold passage, if i understand you right, is exactly my point: I dont see what prevents our universe (energy, space-time, laws, etc) to exist in a much larger universe that IS eternal.

  This is my most important question. However, i have to ask one more:

  A n infinite regression is illogical in and of itself because we end up with the problem of transgressing an infinite past

  I am not quite sure what you mean by 'regression'. Do you just mean an ordered number of points x1,x2,x3... such that x(n+1) = f(xn) where f is some transformation function? (the x does not have to be numbers)?
• 
  87

  How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

  by darkl1ght3r in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

  step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

  all effects require a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  PSacramento: Assuming your remark was made to what i wrote -

  I dont promote any anti-theist arguments ala '... therefore God does not exist QED' and never will. I think it is quite a silly thing to attempt and not something i connect with atheism.

  The reason i have an interest in these kinds of threads is that there seem to be some who believe it is possible to create arguments that 'demonstrate' a God exist. The arguments are, as Darklighter noted, based some physical structure they believe could only occur because God made it, or an philosophical argument such as the Cosmological Argument.

  No arguments of these types i have seen hold water, and most are truly horrible. I dont even argue them because i dont believe in God, i argue them because when you study mathematics you get a deep aversion towards poor logic, it really make me cringe! :-).

  Shooting down all those arguments does not in my eyes proove that God does not exist.
• 
  87

  How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

  by darkl1ght3r in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

  step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

  all effects require a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  I feel this discussion is getting sidetracked. Darklighters original statement was:

  *********

  Step 1

  Come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".

  For example:

  • All effects require a cause. Therefore, there must be a first cause.
  • All complex life-forms require a designer. Life cannot come from non-life.

  Step 2

  Come up with a being that the law created in Step 1 does not apply to.

  For Example:

  • God

  *********

  The assertion is that this is a general characterization of theistic arguments. What is quite unclear to me is how DD and BTS stand on this type of arguments, or how their formulation of such an argument would be. I believe that without such specification it is hard for the conversation to proceed in a meaningfull way.

  As i read the discussion DD believe "All effects require a cause. Therefore, there must be a first cause." is a statement that is worth to defend, however as we saw his definition of 'Cause' and 'Effect' (or rather, the most common definition in the dictionary since he would not provide such one) make the first part of the statement a tautology, and therefore reduce to "therefore there exist a first cause". That is not an argument, it is just an unproven assertion!

  This leaves "Step 2", which is also unproven and (as it stand) reduce the entire argument to an argument from definition.

  I believe EVERYONE can agree that Darklighters argument (as it stand) does not prove anything at best. Hence talking meta-physics and distracting the conversation to some tiny corner of it is non-sensial since there are problems in every part of the argument.

  The problems are so large i would claim the only possible way to refute Darklighters conclusion is to show his argument is a straw man, and i very much hope that DD or BTS would attempt to do that by providing what they feel is a proper theistic argument that we can then discuss.

  I would like to provide the observation that the last time we had this type of discussion pretty much the same thing happened.

  Man up, theists! instead of taking pot-shots at the small stuff, put forth your arguments for all to see and discuss!