Ok, I'm not as educated as these guys and I'll admit there were times that I just stared at the screen and went "huh?" That said, I don't have to know what something is to tell you what it's not. If I see a purple blob of gooey substance, I know it's not a car. I don't know what it is, but it's not a car. Am I wrong? Should I consider it may be car since I don't know what it is?
How is pointing out that Slick's assumption that everything is either physical or conceptual is an unproven assumption (since Slick didn't present any evidence for this) the same as "running away from the truth"?
Matt D. doesn't have to present evidence that a third option exists, because Matt S. is the one making the claim that only 2 options exist, that everything is either physical or conceptual and therefore he has the burden of proof! It's logic 101!
Slick does exactly what CARM does. They've corrupted the third "Law of Logic" by saying, "that a statement is either true or false." This, of course contradicts the first "Law of Logic." It should read, "that a statement is either true or NOT TRUE." Or, as per the first law, it is either A or not A. You can't just introduce the need to define what "A" isn't or assign "A" the properties of another entity of your choice, if it is not A.
Matt Dillahunty had no counter point to make against Matt Slick, he got cornered and could only say, nope its not conceptual, however he failed to say what it is or give another option. Gotta love it when he could not give an answer and just put Slick on hold and then still proceded to attack him without giving the opportunity of Slick to defend himself, Matt Dillahunty failed miserably in this debate.
@metro2034artyom Well, like Matt D. said " I just spent forty-five minutes" telling him why and he still couldn't get it and neither do you. Some things are just beyond the grasp of some peoples mind's.
I think this, on some level, is like that old "if a tree falls in the woods and there's noone to hear it, does it make a sound?" thing. Of course it does. Whether anyone is there to perceive something or not doesn't change that. Yes, we perceive these logical absolutes, but that doesn't change the fact that they were already there to BE perceived. Claiming that us seeing them is required for them to exist is nonsense. With the name of "Slick", odd that he sure isn't..
@AchronTimeless Ah, but it doesn't make a sound. The tree's fall creates a frequency that is translated by ears into a sound. Without ears to do the translation the frequency does not become a sound. Like Shroedinger's, cat the sound of the fallen tree is only realized (made real) by perception.
@Kaddywompous You are incorrect there. It does make a sound, and just because you're not there to perceive it doesn't change that. What you're talking about only works at the quantum level and you're misapplying it. That's like saying the candybar in my desk drawer doesn't exist until I look at it. That's patently absurd.
@AchronTimeless To repeat, it DOES emit a frequency, but that frequency is only experienced as sound by beings with ears to translate it into sound. Without this translation it remains, simply, a frequency. Also, it is not like saying the candy bar does not exist, rather, it is saying that the candy bar exists in an infinite number of ways. It only exists in a particular way (particle way) once it is perceived. Until it is perceived, the candy bar does not exist in a specific way.
@Kaddywompous yes, and what do we call a frequency of waves in air? Oh, that's right, sound. Again, just because you're not there to perceive it doesn't mean that it stops meeting that definition. As for the candy bar, it's not going to be a kitten while I'm not watching it. You can't apply what happens on a quantum scale to larger systems like that. It's lunacy and shows that you only know enough to be misinformed.
@AchronTimeless Of course we call it sound, but it is not experienced as sound unless there is a hearer. So, yes, the "sound" exists, but absent a perceiver there is no sound heard. Similarly, the candy bar only exists in a particular way after it is perceived. Existence requires perception to exist in a particular way.
@Kaddywompous yes, we call it sound, so it's still sound. If you honestly think that the moment you turn your back on your computer that there's a very real possibility that it transmutes into a bunch of faries having an orgy until the moment you turn around.. this conversation is over. Saying the same things over and over doesn't make them right, and I'm not going to bother letting you say them to me. Afterall, I turn into a carrot while you're waiting for me to read them. *sigh*
You people are delusional to think Matt Dillahunty won this. He could never prove that logical absolutes weren't conceptual by nature because he couldn't tell us what they weren't if they weren't physical laws.
@ATLMastering Saying "I cant think of a third option" is not proof that there are only two. Slick is so dishonest. He did not address any of the clear problems pointed out and instead resorted to a dishonest showman tactic to try and act like he won. I think an appropriate word for the logical absolutes could be fundemental.
Btw if his point was valid then what is god? Is he physical or conceptual, since according to him those are te only two options.
Intellectualization is a defense mechanism where reasoning is used to block confrontation with an unconscious conflict and its associated emotional stress, by 'using excessive and abstract ideation to avoid difficult feelings'.[1] It involves removing one's self, emotionally, from a stressful event. Intellectualization may accompany, but 'differs from rationalization, which is justification of irrational behavior through cliches, stories, and pat explanation. This is what Slick resorted to.
I hate Slick he thinks just because we don't believe in christianity that we are suppose to replace it with something else? Sorry but im not going to put bullshit before bullshit Im happy with not pretending to know the universe lol
At BEST all slick is doing is just asking questions that don't have full concrete answers yet. Just like when humans thought the Earth was the center of the universe, the world was flat, storms were caused by the gods and disease was caused by God. We have concrete answers to those now. You can't assume every time humans don't yet understand the way something works, that it proves God or gods exist. And this will always be the best that the religious side can come up with.
I agree with slick....what could it be if it's not physical nor conceptual? Sound is physical because we can measure it, etc.., everything that's not physical occurs in the mind. Matt D fails
> How do you argue that something is not valid [.] if
> you dont have something valid [.] to counter it with?
Matt D. did have something valid to counter it with. He pointed out that Slick does assert that physical+conceptual is a true dichotomie (T.D.) without giving any evidence for it. You don't need to proof that it is a T.D. only in cases like "A" + "Not A". But Slick asserts that "A" + "B" is a T.D. and that's only true if "B" = "Not A" which needs to be proven! ...
Matt D. doesn't have to proof that "physical"+"conceptual" isn't a true dichotomy, because TAG's validity is dependent on it being a true dichotomy! Therefore it is Slicks job to proof that it is a true dichotomie and not to simply assert that it is. And as long as he can't do it, TAG might or might not be valid. => A god may or may not exist.
Btw: Watch Matt D's response to Slicks victory claim here:
Its a shame to see a smart man like Matt Dillahunty continue to have no defense for his own argument. Later in the video you notice his frustration when he puts Slick on hold and doesnt want to show him another example. Its just very difficult to agree with someone that doesnt believe in anything and cannot prove their point or even have a good defense for it. "GIVE ME A THIRD POSSIBLITY!" great debate because it shows the intollerance of atheist. God bless you all.
@AABREU80 wrong mong tits, slick fucks up in video 2, where he asserts that conceptual ideas are the same as the things they apply to, a fallacy dilluhunty pointed out to him 4 times
1:52 Slick: "This is it: There is either the physical or non-physical, there is either the conceptual or non-conceptual. You also are required to offer me a third option..." STOP!
This is where I would stop him. He just said you are required to give me a third option when, in fact, he just gave Matt 4, not 2, options. The answer "niether" that Matt gives later is him actually accepting two of Slick's options — that is the absolutes are non-conceptual non-physical. It's perfectly valid.
To be honest, Slick's entire argument was completely debunked from about the middle of the first video, everything after that has just been the two going in circles.
Any "Logical Absoulte" is valid within the reality that they are defined. If not, then LA's are gods as MD claims. But then the definition of the basic concepts such as existence, reality etc. should be defined in absolute terms as well. Therefore, with LA's one can only prove the existence of a pre-conceived god, such as the god of the Bible that is defined in the Bible already.
@HunchbackJack Yes. Because, as long you "assume" transcendancy of LA's your arguments are preconceived.
Like this ... if there is an absolute that is imperceptable i.e. transcendant than the question is how do you obtain information about an absolute transcendant?
I don't think you can prove the existence of a transcendent being through logic alone. You may be able to come up with questions that boil down to "why is he universe the way it is?", or "what happened before the big bang?", but to get from that question to any specific description of a transcendent being is a leap of faith. It's only by being able to detect such a being that we could verify any claims about it.
@HunchbackJack Well, if we are to talk about the Creator (or the cause of everything) by definition "IT" has to exist before the starting of the universe. Asking the existence of such a being within the perception of science which deals things within the universe is self contradictory. That's why objective reasoning i.e. a reasoning without pre conceived ideas is quite difficult. The moment we start to define reality and deduce a truth out of this definition we fall to be prejudiced.
@HunchbackJack In other words, if the Creator existed before creating this universe by definition He transcends this universe, Asking a proof of his existence withing this universe is self contradictory (such as asking to see him etc. since we can't even see everything within the universe how can we see the cause of it), while the very existence of this universe proves the existence of the Creator from His "point of view."
@Fussinated Perhaps, but again, being transcendent, you couldn't make any claims about such a "Creator" other than it being an agent which caused the start of the universe. You can't even assert the Creator is sentient or intelligent. Not so much a Creator, then, but a Cause.
Even that assumes that Time existed before the start of the universe, which may not be the case. If time did not exist, there was no cause of the universe, because cause and effect are temporal in nature.
@HunchbackJack "...Not so much a Creator, then, but a Cause."
Hmm! regardless, to claim such a thing then you have tyo have something more than secience, since science can't tell who is sentient or not. As long as you can;t explain each and everything within this universe with science including consciosuness and free will, what ever you say about the unknown is mere a speculation not a law or scietific fact. (cntd)
@HunchbackJack "... because cause and effect are temporal in nature."
This expression, actually is scientitfcally self contradictory. The only way "hypothesize"a contiunous universe is depending on the Black Holes and they are the edge of the time and space the way we know it i.e. singulariy i.e. timelessness and spacelessness. (cntd)
@HunchbackJack 3-) One way or another, as a conscious and conscience being, you are the product of T&S lessness. The question is which one do you prefer; Being theproduct of an unconscious and conscience, universe or being created by conscious and conscience. If you choose the former then you have to show any prtoof that your conscious and sense of consceince has units within this uiniverse and come emerge of their own when there is enough units collected together. (cntd)
@Fussinated (cont.) Furthermore, if one claims that the transcendent Creator has any influence inside the universe, then immediately the argument that the Creator is beyond the perception of science goes completely out the window. If influence manifests in our universe, that influence should be detectable and verifiable by science. If no influence can be verified by science, then the Creator is, at best, irrelevant to our existence.
@HunchbackJack "Furthermore, if one claims that the transcendent Creator has any influence inside the universe, then immediately the argument that the Creator is beyond the perception of science goes completely out the window."
Thsi is a huge assumption. It is an assumption because even within this universe we coudln;t explain everything as they were yet, therefore we don't know science as we know it could explain everything at all ... (cntd)
@HunchbackJack 5-) as well as we don't know whether it will confirm the existenc eof a creator in the and as well. Beyond that if you claim that science is the key to decide in this issue, then people before science had no chance to find about the truth as well developing the ethics, Do you see any atheist through history developing a moral society from start? NO. Therefore, Atheism is a established faith over a well defined morality, simply by ignoring the source of that morality.(cntd)
@HunchbackJack 6-) Morality is the key in reasoning, because if you have a preconceived idea and if you force it, then your reasoning is immoral because preconceived ideas from the dogmas. Truth on the other hand is the key science or reasoning or religion etc. won't falter it and they coexist in hramony within the truth.
@HunchbackJack "If influence manifests in our universe, that influence should be detectable and verifiable by science."
Again self contradictory statment. Science claims that it can explain events without bringing the concept of a creator into the issue. That is why Darwin talks about "Natural Selection" instead of "the way of god." Once you start with such a mind set, one wonders what kind of verification you are talking about. Also with this you lose the defense "god of the unknown" as well
@HunchbackJack "If no influence can be verified by science, then the Creator is, at best, irrelevant to our existence"
So, you agree that you can't prove the existence of a creator directly by five senses? If so then why don't you define science as the effort to understand the actions of that Creator. Einstein did for example he said that he didn't believe that god throws dice with the universe. Apperantly there is no need to be an Atheist to be a sceintist. (cntd)
@HunchbackJack 8-) "If no influence can be verified by science, then the Creator is, at best, irrelevant to our existence."
There is no perfect ecosystem in the universe since we don't see energy forming matter of its own. So assuming that the universe is created and left alone of its own is not a scientific approach at all. like every system in our universe perhaps the very universe itself need an outside source to continue. and ther is a sceintific support for this approach; DARK MATTER >>
@HunchbackJack >> Dark Matter, is a concept to explain why galaxies are satying together even though there is not enough mass in them to do so. No one can observe DM, no one really knows that it exists. Scientifically it should be there. So, scientifcally for our universe to maintain its existence the way it is we hypothesize an unreal existence such as DM. What is it now, sceince of the unknown or imperceptable? Think about it, how much did science really explained than?? >>>
@HunchbackJack > Did science really explained anything at all? Considering that a Persian Muslim, a devout Muslim, a religious individual (Ibn MIsqyawayh) established the evolution theory centuries before Darwin one should consider that today's science could well be a very profitable popularity contests, instead of explaining the universe at all. The truth though until we come to DM there are many things science can't explain should be enough of a verification for the influence of a Creator -End
@Fussinated I'm sorry, your discourse was too long and discursive for me to address every point.
Let me just say that the universe may have had a cause, but I don't think that is evidence of a sentient Creator, as we know nothing about the nature of that cause. One could choose to believe the cause was a sentient Creator, but the fact that the universe began is not, in itself, supporting evidence of that.
@HunchbackJack 2-) Look you are just saying thinsg yet you don't explain why. I will give you an example.
"One could choose to believe the cause was a sentient Creator, but the fact that the universe began is not, in itself, supporting evidence of that."
This contradicts with the scientific knowledge. BECAUSE, For matter to start Energy is need to be converted into matter. Energy, by its nature escapes and escapes sintead cumulating and condensing. (cntd)
@HunchbackJack 4-) So, if you claim to be scientific, supporting evidence is right there you simply to chose ignoring it with the preset mind that assumes it can be someday explained in scietific formulas. This is your religion and this is your dogma and this is your god.
See, I said there is a contradiction and I explained it all you have to disproive this is to show that energy turns into matter of its own. So by simply saying something you are not tellling anything. (cntd)
@Fussinated (cont.) Furthermore, while I agree that a sentient Creator would be beyond the reach of science to detect or analyse if it were outside the universe, I think that such a being is both irrelevant (because it has no influence), and completely unknowable, and we can make no verifiable claims about it - including claims either way of its existence.
I try not to believe anything that can't be verified as true. What reason would I have to do so?
@HunchbackJack 3-) Because of this nature of the energy to start the universe with a big bang and form matter a consciosu or deilberate action is required to bring that energy together.
Noiw we have no idea what was ther before universe started, but according to the formula E=mc2 there should be enough energy to form this universe. This is what our science says and scietifically conscious act is required to form the universe, since we can't observe energy forming matter of its own. (cntd)
@Fussinated Matter did not come from energy at the big bang. Both matter and energy came from a super-dense *something* - either very dense matter, very high energy, or something neither matter nor energy. The matter and energy that resulted from the big bang are both lower-energy states than what preceded them.
We see energy become matter. Black holes give off x-rays due to that process.
Even though I agree with you this is not not issue at hand. We are talking about the "EXISTENCE" of a creator, not what we can know about "IT." BTW, where did you get the idea that you can know about the Creator?
"we can make no verifiable claims about it - including claims either way of its existence."
Again, you contradict, Belief? Faith? You want to bypass these and claim ceratinity over smtng you can only obtain via reasoning (cntd)
@HunchbackJack "Matter did not come from energy at the big bang."
How do you know this?
Also, very high or not energy is energy, Why r u trying to dispute what I said with such cirular expression? Support ur argument with scientific explanations please other wise my explanation and the connection to the formula E= mc2 is solid. U can;t refute what I said with speculations. (cntd)
@Fussinated "Why r u trying to dispute what I said with such cirular expression?"
Let me put it another way then. Energy and mass are different states of the same thing, which is why we can convert between them (as E=mc^2 shows). But it takes a lot of energy to create even a small amount of mass, which is why we don't see energy turning to mass except at the subatomic level.
"which is why we don't see energy turning to mass except at the subatomic level"
ENERGY DOESN'T TURN INTO MATTER OF ITS OWN. THERE IS NO NATURAL OCCURENCE PROVES OTHERWISE. THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS THE PARTICLE ACCELERATORS WHICH NECESSITATES THE CONSCIOUS ACT OF HUMANS.
Still, this isn't a proof for pure energy turning into matter afterall.
@Fussinated (cont.) At the big bang, however, there was a superhot superdense singularity, from which massive amounts of both energy and mass were produced as it expanded. This was possible because the matter and energy produced were at a lower energy state (ie were "cooler") than the original singularity. They needed a Creator no more than a pan of melted butter needs a Creator to make it solidify as it cools. It was a natural product of the expanding singularity.
@HunchbackJack "At the big bang, however, there was a superhot superdense singularity"
Really? how do you know this? where did it come from? are you trying to bring a scientific guess work as a scientific fact? Thgis is not even a legitimate theory since no one knows what was there before the big bang and shortly after it occured as well, as the guess work goes the universe expanded faster than light within the first miniscule moments. (cntd)
@Fussinated I'm describing the current big bang theory. I don't know where the singularity came from, but I'm not making any claims about that. I'm responding to your assertions that:
a) energy can't turn into matter spontaneously, and therefore
b) a Creator was needed at the big bang in order to turn energy into matter
Both of these assertions are wrong. Energy does turn into matter spontaneously, and matter was created at the big bang as the expanding singularity cooled.
@Fussinated "Where [does energy turn into matter]?"
As I explained, energy turning into matter is why black holes emit X-rays. Quantum fluctuations of energy create matter/antimatter particle pairs, one of which is consumed by the black hole; the existence of the other particle causes an x-ray to be emitted.
"how can you claim that thereis such a singularity if you don't know where did it come form"
I don't know where it came from, but the evidence suggests that's how the universe began.
@HunchbackJack "As I explained, energy turning into matter is why black holes emit X-rays"
No it is "thought" that the gasses that fall into the black holes cause that x Ray emission. Check Ur personal messages I gave a reference for this.
"Quantum fluctuations of energy create matter/antimatter particle pairs, one of which is consumed by the black hole; the existence of the other particle causes an x-ray to be emitted."
NO. U R making this up. there is no such thing. (cntd)
@HunchbackJack "I don't know where it came from, but the evidence suggests that's how the universe began"
LOL! "evidence suggests"? So, humans being conscious doesn't suggest that they are from a higher consciousness? Are U for real? Besides there is no such evidence that suggests that there was a singularity in the beginning. Just like m doesn't turn into E of its own no body observed a singularity much less it cause a universe at all. U bring guess works as if they are scientific facts.
Yes, evidence, based on our understanding of physical laws, and what conditions would have been like in the first few moments of the universe. And verified *precisely* by the microwave background radiation.
Even if we weren't so certain of the singularity, there's no credence to the claims that "matter can't come from energy" or that "a Creator was needed to create matter from energy at the Big Bang". Basic physics disproves those.
@HunchbackJack > As U see reasoning is more of an ethical issue I stated so many contradictions in UR arguments none is addressed I asked scietific proofs none satisfied, I asked thesources of your information to decide about thelegitimacy of UR reasoning again none satisfied.
UR an Atheist U R supposed to be rational, U R supposed to bring ethics without the fear of "God."
So, where is it? Where is the proper ethics which prevents U lying, or making false accusations?
"So, humans being conscious doesn't suggest that they are from a higher consciousness?"
I'm not making any claims about that. I'm simply responding to your assertion that the big bang theory provides supporting evidence for the existence of a sentient Creator. That's all.
It's disappointing that when I describe what the Big Bang Theory *actually* demonstrates, you simply refuse to accept it because it invalidates your claim.
@HunchbackJack "I'm not making any claims about that. I'm simply responding to your assertion that the big bang theory provides supporting evidence for the existence of a sentient Creator. That's all"
Sadly, U R not doing that. Also, you miss the point that what U call as evidence is no more credible than a logical statment which could be put in many different ways for anything with the same legitimacy.
@HunchbackJack "It's disappointing that when I describe what the Big Bang Theory *actually* demonstrates, you simply refuse to accept it because it invalidates your claim"
It is disappointing when U start speaking lies such as E turning into m spontaneously, There was a singularity before the universe etc. Contradictions too. U say T & S leessness does not create anything yet to save UR argument, U claim exactly the opposite, U even claim the physics within a singularity is predicted SIGH! >
@HunchbackJack > Also I answered UR question even silly ones u talk about butter. How do you think U invalidated anything I said? I asked U repeatedly from where U R getting UR information to reach UR conclusions. Instead of giving straight answers U delved into scientific guess work (not even true theories).
U simply refuse the fact that E doesn't turn into m without conscious act, yet you claim that I refuse what U say. This is called projection in psychology. U accuse me with what U do >
@Fussinated I have explained repeatedly how matter *can* comes from energy (Hawking radiation), and how matter was created naturally soon after the big bang. This is not "guess work" - it is established scientific theory, validated by strong evidence (MBR).
These claims are the crux of your argument that the big bang provides evidence of a creator. I have refuted them. Simply continuing to restate both the incorrect facts and the invalid argument does not make it true.
NO, you mentioned guess works of scientists. However you forgot to mention about VIRTUAL PARTICALS and how they ARE assigned real mass VALUES arbitrarily by scientists etc. Either you have no clue what you are talking about or you make those scientific guess work lie for you.
@Fussinated "However you forgot to mention about VIRTUAL PARTICALS and how they ARE assigned real mass VALUES arbitrarily by scientists etc."
Not at all. Virtual particles *are* the matter/antimatter particle pairs I referred to. Virtual particles have mass; they do exist - just for a limited time. They are created by quantum fluctuations in energy.
"Either you have no clue what you are talking about or you make those scientific guess work lie for you"
"They(virtual particles) are ALLOWED to have mass (which consists of "borrowed energy"[citation needed]) because they exist for only a temporary time, which in turn gives them a limited "range". "
This is because of the uncertainityprincipal i.e. the momentum they create. That is why the mass value of a Virtual particle could be plus or minus.
@Fussinated "That is why the mass value of a Virtual particle could be plus or minus."
This doesn't negate anything I've said. You've claimed energy can't be converted to matter by anything other than a Creator. Virtual particles are energy converted to matter. Short-lived matter, granted, but matter nonetheless.
LOL! Yes it does LOL! this is the difference between real prticle and a virtual particle. Virtual particle is assigned a mass while real particel HAS real mass.
"Again, nothing here negates what I've said"
U R negated completely. you just want to hang on the layman explanations or .. you simply have this much understanding of the issue.
@Fussinated (cntd) A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.
@Fussinated "A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields."
Again, nothing here negates what I've said. Photons can be modeled as either particles or waves; a virtual particle can be modeled as a wave as well, but that doesn't make it any less a (short-lived) particle.
E=mc^2 shows that energy can be converted to mass. VPs are an example.
@HunchbackJack "E=mc^2 shows that energy can be converted to mass."
I said this to you, remember?
"VPs are an example."
They are examples that energy state of a closed system might become unstable and we can apply them in our calculations for this state as if they are real particles, but they are not and their mass is no more than a ripple in the space than they themselves are not real.
@Fussinated ""E=mc^2 shows that energy can be converted to mass." I said this to you, remember?"
Indeed. Yet you seem to think that it doesn't actually happen.
"They are examples that energy state of a closed system might become unstable and we can apply them in our calculations for this state as if they are real particles, but they are not and their mass is no more than a ripple in the space than they themselves are not real."
Not accurate. Particles can be modeled as ripples.
"I found it very interesting - particularly all the physics at the end."
Well, again I'm not sure because evenb the physicists themselves don't claim that they can explain everything with the existing theories, yet the layman acts like science explained everything for good and accepting that the universe is the creator of a conscious creator is flat out false.
The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. (cntd)
@HunchbackJack "These claims are the crux of your argument"
No the real crux is that yoiu want me accept a scientific guess work as undeniable truth. You simply try to dodge the real issue, and explain the source for your information. For example, Do Black Holes cause loss of information? What is the relation of loos of information and Hawking Radiation? Are you aware that if Hawking Radiation undermines scientific reasoning more than reasoning due to its lead to Information Loss?
@HunchbackJack Also you claimed that Time & Space lessness can't create anything yet now you claim a singularity which is where time and space can't be defined, caused the Universe out of the blue.
@Fussinated "now you claim a singularity which is where time and space can't be defined, caused the Universe out of the blue"
No one knows where the singularity came from; no one understands why it started expanding. No one knows the cause of the universe, or whether there was a cause.
But evidence (eg microwave background radiation) strongly suggests that the expanding superhot superdense singularity existed, and we understand how it produced matter and energy by natural processes.
@HunchbackJack (cntd) Here is the contradiction. According to current "theories" if some moves faster than light it can move back in time. Then universe should have collapsed ont itself a t the very beginning of itself.
@HunchbackJack "They needed a Creator no more than a pan of melted butter needs a Creator to make it solidify as it cools."
This is true i.e. melted butter needs the Creator to solidify as well, unless you claim that butter has conscious and it itself determined the principals of soldification process for itself again. Do you claim such a thing?
@HunchbackJack "You're claiming that God causes a pan of butter to solidify as it cools? Really?"
Now, now first prove your claims about that energy turns into matter spontenausly. The rest should be easy don't move ahead of yourself
I would claim that simple chemistry does that; it needs no intelligent agent
The I sure hope U have a solid information about who determined the laws of "simple chemistry." Chemicals themselves or an unconsious source or what? or is it another guess work?
@Fussinated We don't know what caused the big bang (of anything). We can't make any claims about that cause, if it exists - including the claim that it was a sentient being.
I'm not claiming it *wasn't* a sentient being; I'm saying that there's no basis for claiming it *was* - or for claiming anything about the cause, if there was one.
@HunchbackJack 4-) "Furthermore, while I agree that a sentient Creator would be beyond the reach of science to detect or analyse if it were outside the universe, I think that such a being is both irrelevant (because it has no influence)"
Why do you think that way? Where is your reasoning line here? (cntd)
@HunchbackJack "I try not to believe anything that can't be verified as true. What reason would I have to do so?"
The question is is your conscious advanced enough to recognize the verifiable, or your mind open enough to understand the proof? Thgis is not a matter of IQ this is a matter of ethics.
@Fussinated Lastly, a few of your statements run along the lines of: "Science can't confirm or deny the existence of a Creator outside the universe. So why not believe in him?"
My answer is simply: I have no reason to.
Certainly the fact that there are things we don't understand - including whether the universe had a cause and, if so, its nature - and the fact that science can't disprove a sentient Creator living beyond our powers of detection, are not reasons to believe in one.
@HunchbackJack "Lastly, a few of your statements run along the lines of: "Science can't confirm or deny the existence of a Creator outside the universe. So why not believe in him?" "
If you'd read what carefully I also said that with your very own approach by claiming that science could and should explain events without even considering the presence of a Creator you lose to come up with such a defense, God of the unknown.
First establish the contexts what I said. Science is incapable of explaining of everything. If you believe in science you have no excuse not believe in religion as well.
Second, believing in a Creator does not prevent someone to try to understand universe i.e. producing scientfic thought.
Third, as a conscious being, assuming what you don't know or understand, is understood and known by higher being is quite meaningful, rather than beliving in the void. cntd
"the fact that science can't disprove a sentient Creator living beyond our powers of detection, are not reasons to believe in one."
U r going ahead of me, I never claimed such a thing. to the contrary I am trying to show you that the existence of the Creator is provable not scientifically thogh. I dare u to prove that U R a conscious being and UR conscious originates to this universe. (this is redundant now) (cntd)
The guy is smart enough to know that Matt D. is undermining his whole premise, which is designed to start really abstract and then build on that abstraction to suggest the existence of God. That's why he has to defend this seemingly indefensible point. It's the linchpin of his argument.
what about paradoxes? The truth value of the statement "This statement is false" is both true and false, i.e., it is what it is and it is not what it is and also it violates the law of excluded middle.
The 3rd option IS the logical absolutes themselves. Whether or not a mind can assess a thing is what it is and is not what it is not, it still is what it is and is not what it is not what it is not.
God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. Therefore is plausible God exists.
I think what he was trying to say is that logic is conceptual because it does not exist if we don't conceive of it; but this is wrong. Logic is a way of contecting events and coming up with conclusions (in short); logic can be classified as a law in terms of it's ability to describe or infer reality. This is similar to the laws of physics. We conceived of them, but they existed before we conceived of them. They are not physical or conceptual in their own existance, but they exist.
This basically summarises a lot of the theists position. "I don't know what it could be, therefore X. And if you don't know what it is either, you have to agree with X." Why do some people have such an issue with just saying "I don't know". This is tantamount to saying- "This photographed flying saucer is either a fake photo or it's aliens." It's the person making the claim that has to demonstrate that's a correct dichotomy, not the one doubting it.
Slick still doesn't understand that the two options is incorrect. It's been explained to him by several people (myself included) but he still doesn't understand remedial logic. He starts insulting you if you correct him. Slick is a class A dick.
Like Dillahunty said in pt. 1 many people watch and listen to this stuff later on and are late to the current debate. Thats me. But i thought it was a very interesting debate until the usual smart Dillahunty could not answer the question. Instead of being honest about it he cuts slick off and ends the debate.
Like Dillahunty said in pt. 1 many people watch and listen to this stuff later on and are late to the current debate. Thats me. But i thought it was a very interesting debate until the usual smart Dillahunty could not answer the question. Instead of being honest about it he cuts slick off and ends the debate.
@mas03 Slick was right? are you kidding me? there's more than 2 options than physical or cenceptual...matt slick even admitted this later on when matt dillahunty asked what his god was (physical or conceptual). and y'know what matt slick said? he said, "god is neither"
@mas03 Slick was right? are you kidding me? there's more than 2 options than physical or cenceptual...matt slick even admitted this later on when matt dillahunty asked what his god was (physical or conceptual). and y'know what matt slick said? he said, "god is neither"
@mas03 right. i was just trying to point out that matt slick was wrong here with his argument which was: "there's only 2 options, physical or conceptual"
@mas03 nooo i'm not saying that at all. non-conceptual and non-physical means ANYTHING besides conceptual or physical...one thing that fits in that category is supernatural/meta-physical...just on a personal note, i don't believe that the supernatural/meta-physical even exists, but it's still possible.
@chadwick0091 non-conceptual and non-physical means ANYTHING besides conceptual or physical, but you're not telling me what the 3rd option is. You said there is more than 2 options, but you cant give me at least one more. Since you havent provided the 3rd option we have 2 options and if one of them is wrong the other one automatically becomes the true one.
@mas03 no it doesn't mean that. just b/c i can't give you an example, does not mean that the other possible options (non-conceptual or non-physical) are excluded.
@chadwick0091 what "other possibilities" ? You're saying other but you cant name one. This is the EXACT same thing atheists use on christians. When Theists say we believe there is a god Atheists say until there is EVIDENCE/PROF we arent going to believe you. We can say the same thing you are saying " Just because I cant think of a reason why he exists doesnt mean he doesnt. You are doing the same thing here you are saying just because I cant name another option doesnt mean there isent one.
@mas03 first, i NEVER said that "b/c you can't think of a reason why he exists, doesn't mean he doesn't" i've never made the claim that god doesn't exist. second, since you seem to want everything to be physical or conceptual, is your god physical or conceptual?
@chadwick0091 first, I NEVER said that you said that you said it, Iam speaking up Atheists in general. So are you an Atheist or an Agnostic? 2. God is neither because he is God. By the nature of God god is neither
@mas03 I'm Atheist Agnostic. but yes, it is possible that your god is neither conceptual or physical...or in other words, NON-conceptual and NON-physical...so, as far as we know, those are all of the options. 1. physical 2. conceptual 3. non-physical 4. non-conceptual. so, options 3 and 4 can be summed up into one option as Neither
@mas03 TAG relies on everything supposedly being conceptual or physical. If your God is supposedly neither physical or conceptual then you have just shown that TAG is false.
@mas03 TAG relies on a supposed dichotomy. Everything is either conceptual or physical. This 'true dichotomy' is vital to the argument, if your God is neither conceptual or physical then there is no true dichotomy and therefore the argument is false. There are so many things wrong with TAG that it is almost laughably absurd that anyone still tries to use it as an argument for the existence of a God.
@IamGarySimpson One could argue that the LAs are also transcendent; they are neither physical nor conceptual, they are the fundamental principles on which our reality depend. As such, they require no mind to conceive of them in order to exist.
Ok, I'm not as educated as these guys and I'll admit there were times that I just stared at the screen and went "huh?" That said, I don't have to know what something is to tell you what it's not. If I see a purple blob of gooey substance, I know it's not a car. I don't know what it is, but it's not a car. Am I wrong? Should I consider it may be car since I don't know what it is?
orcslayer006 21 hours ago
Matt Dillahunty running away from the truth
joclovesprince92 5 days ago
@joclovesprince92
How is pointing out that Slick's assumption that everything is either physical or conceptual is an unproven assumption (since Slick didn't present any evidence for this) the same as "running away from the truth"?
Matt D. doesn't have to present evidence that a third option exists, because Matt S. is the one making the claim that only 2 options exist, that everything is either physical or conceptual and therefore he has the burden of proof! It's logic 101!
Rawlsrocks 17 hours ago
Slick does exactly what CARM does. They've corrupted the third "Law of Logic" by saying, "that a statement is either true or false." This, of course contradicts the first "Law of Logic." It should read, "that a statement is either true or NOT TRUE." Or, as per the first law, it is either A or not A. You can't just introduce the need to define what "A" isn't or assign "A" the properties of another entity of your choice, if it is not A.
D3maine 6 days ago
Matt Dillahunty is beast!
espnfan54 1 week ago
Matt Dillahunty had no counter point to make against Matt Slick, he got cornered and could only say, nope its not conceptual, however he failed to say what it is or give another option. Gotta love it when he could not give an answer and just put Slick on hold and then still proceded to attack him without giving the opportunity of Slick to defend himself, Matt Dillahunty failed miserably in this debate.
metro2034artyom 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@metro2034artyom rubbish. Matt was all over this guy.
daverowbotham 1 week ago
@metro2034artyom lol Matt killed him. Slicks entire argument was a logical fallacy.
espnfan54 1 week ago
@metro2034artyom Well, like Matt D. said " I just spent forty-five minutes" telling him why and he still couldn't get it and neither do you. Some things are just beyond the grasp of some peoples mind's.
D3maine 6 days ago
I think this, on some level, is like that old "if a tree falls in the woods and there's noone to hear it, does it make a sound?" thing. Of course it does. Whether anyone is there to perceive something or not doesn't change that. Yes, we perceive these logical absolutes, but that doesn't change the fact that they were already there to BE perceived. Claiming that us seeing them is required for them to exist is nonsense. With the name of "Slick", odd that he sure isn't..
AchronTimeless 2 weeks ago
@AchronTimeless Ah, but it doesn't make a sound. The tree's fall creates a frequency that is translated by ears into a sound. Without ears to do the translation the frequency does not become a sound. Like Shroedinger's, cat the sound of the fallen tree is only realized (made real) by perception.
Kaddywompous 1 week ago
@Kaddywompous You are incorrect there. It does make a sound, and just because you're not there to perceive it doesn't change that. What you're talking about only works at the quantum level and you're misapplying it. That's like saying the candybar in my desk drawer doesn't exist until I look at it. That's patently absurd.
AchronTimeless 1 week ago
@AchronTimeless To repeat, it DOES emit a frequency, but that frequency is only experienced as sound by beings with ears to translate it into sound. Without this translation it remains, simply, a frequency. Also, it is not like saying the candy bar does not exist, rather, it is saying that the candy bar exists in an infinite number of ways. It only exists in a particular way (particle way) once it is perceived. Until it is perceived, the candy bar does not exist in a specific way.
Kaddywompous 1 week ago
@Kaddywompous yes, and what do we call a frequency of waves in air? Oh, that's right, sound. Again, just because you're not there to perceive it doesn't mean that it stops meeting that definition. As for the candy bar, it's not going to be a kitten while I'm not watching it. You can't apply what happens on a quantum scale to larger systems like that. It's lunacy and shows that you only know enough to be misinformed.
AchronTimeless 1 week ago
@AchronTimeless Of course we call it sound, but it is not experienced as sound unless there is a hearer. So, yes, the "sound" exists, but absent a perceiver there is no sound heard. Similarly, the candy bar only exists in a particular way after it is perceived. Existence requires perception to exist in a particular way.
Kaddywompous 1 week ago
@Kaddywompous yes, we call it sound, so it's still sound. If you honestly think that the moment you turn your back on your computer that there's a very real possibility that it transmutes into a bunch of faries having an orgy until the moment you turn around.. this conversation is over. Saying the same things over and over doesn't make them right, and I'm not going to bother letting you say them to me. Afterall, I turn into a carrot while you're waiting for me to read them. *sigh*
AchronTimeless 1 week ago
metaphor is all that there is.
henrytheman74 2 weeks ago
This Matt Dillahaunty guy is such a cocky little shit - what grounds does he have to be so arrogant? He's a pub philosopher.
CharlesDilkes 4 weeks ago
You people are delusional to think Matt Dillahunty won this. He could never prove that logical absolutes weren't conceptual by nature because he couldn't tell us what they weren't if they weren't physical laws.
ATLMastering 1 month ago
@ATLMastering Please explain how that is a "loss".
Frankly, I feel like I won by being able to listen to and stretch to follow these arguments.
TKStoddart 1 month ago
@ATLMastering Saying "I cant think of a third option" is not proof that there are only two. Slick is so dishonest. He did not address any of the clear problems pointed out and instead resorted to a dishonest showman tactic to try and act like he won. I think an appropriate word for the logical absolutes could be fundemental.
Btw if his point was valid then what is god? Is he physical or conceptual, since according to him those are te only two options.
brockunc 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrAwesomesauce7 1 month ago
Intellectualization is a defense mechanism where reasoning is used to block confrontation with an unconscious conflict and its associated emotional stress, by 'using excessive and abstract ideation to avoid difficult feelings'.[1] It involves removing one's self, emotionally, from a stressful event. Intellectualization may accompany, but 'differs from rationalization, which is justification of irrational behavior through cliches, stories, and pat explanation. This is what Slick resorted to.
Jbear9 1 month ago
In what world did Slick win this debate?
Jbear9 1 month ago
@Jbear9 His own conceptual world.
lewisner 1 month ago
@lewisner SO TRUE!
Jbear9 1 month ago
Matt Dillahunty is a crappy debater. Edwin Kagan take it to Slick, though.
Autumn6 1 month ago
Slick wins.
k12rising 1 month ago
I hate Slick he thinks just because we don't believe in christianity that we are suppose to replace it with something else? Sorry but im not going to put bullshit before bullshit Im happy with not pretending to know the universe lol
wachnathan 1 month ago
At BEST all slick is doing is just asking questions that don't have full concrete answers yet. Just like when humans thought the Earth was the center of the universe, the world was flat, storms were caused by the gods and disease was caused by God. We have concrete answers to those now. You can't assume every time humans don't yet understand the way something works, that it proves God or gods exist. And this will always be the best that the religious side can come up with.
swygster 1 month ago
I agree with slick....what could it be if it's not physical nor conceptual? Sound is physical because we can measure it, etc.., everything that's not physical occurs in the mind. Matt D fails
crizilla138 1 month ago
Sound is neither conceptual nor physical, instead it's an effect that manifests in the pattern of physical and is understood via concepts.
TwistedLemniscate 1 month ago
@TwistedLemniscate sound waves are physical.
what they sound like to us is conceptual =)
haz020190 1 month ago
By this point communication has pretty much broken down. Matt just doesn't understand what Matt is saying.
dahuterschuter 1 month ago
How do you argue that something is not valid or real if you dont have something valid or real to counter it with?
AABREU80 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AABREU80
> How do you argue that something is not valid [.] if
> you dont have something valid [.] to counter it with?
Matt D. did have something valid to counter it with. He pointed out that Slick does assert that physical+conceptual is a true dichotomie (T.D.) without giving any evidence for it. You don't need to proof that it is a T.D. only in cases like "A" + "Not A". But Slick asserts that "A" + "B" is a T.D. and that's only true if "B" = "Not A" which needs to be proven! ...
Rawlsrocks 2 months ago
@AABREU80
.. continued:
Matt D. doesn't have to proof that "physical"+"conceptual" isn't a true dichotomy, because TAG's validity is dependent on it being a true dichotomy! Therefore it is Slicks job to proof that it is a true dichotomie and not to simply assert that it is. And as long as he can't do it, TAG might or might not be valid. => A god may or may not exist.
Btw: Watch Matt D's response to Slicks victory claim here:
watch?v=mPaHY1GWhgQ&feature=related
Rawlsrocks 2 months ago
Its a shame to see a smart man like Matt Dillahunty continue to have no defense for his own argument. Later in the video you notice his frustration when he puts Slick on hold and doesnt want to show him another example. Its just very difficult to agree with someone that doesnt believe in anything and cannot prove their point or even have a good defense for it. "GIVE ME A THIRD POSSIBLITY!" great debate because it shows the intollerance of atheist. God bless you all.
AABREU80 2 months ago
@AABREU80 wrong mong tits, slick fucks up in video 2, where he asserts that conceptual ideas are the same as the things they apply to, a fallacy dilluhunty pointed out to him 4 times
mikesomething 2 months ago
@AABREU80 Doesn't believe in anything? Go read a damn book.
jordaniac89 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1:52 Slick: "This is it: There is either the physical or non-physical, there is either the conceptual or non-conceptual. You also are required to offer me a third option..." STOP!
This is where I would stop him. He just said you are required to give me a third option when, in fact, he just gave Matt 4, not 2, options. The answer "niether" that Matt gives later is him actually accepting two of Slick's options — that is the absolutes are non-conceptual non-physical. It's perfectly valid.
TheZealousAtheist 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheZealousAtheist 2 months ago
Comment removed
Quarantine7777 2 months ago
Matt D. used a third option.
He said transcendent.
Zentz29 2 months ago
To be honest, Slick's entire argument was completely debunked from about the middle of the first video, everything after that has just been the two going in circles.
LynkJRayvonn 2 months ago
All this crap went over my head. Matt looked call calling Slick out the whole time though.
Graynumber 2 months ago
Any "Logical Absoulte" is valid within the reality that they are defined. If not, then LA's are gods as MD claims. But then the definition of the basic concepts such as existence, reality etc. should be defined in absolute terms as well. Therefore, with LA's one can only prove the existence of a pre-conceived god, such as the god of the Bible that is defined in the Bible already.
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated Does that include the concept of God that I just made up?
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack Yes. Because, as long you "assume" transcendancy of LA's your arguments are preconceived.
Like this ... if there is an absolute that is imperceptable i.e. transcendant than the question is how do you obtain information about an absolute transcendant?
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated I agree.
I don't think you can prove the existence of a transcendent being through logic alone. You may be able to come up with questions that boil down to "why is he universe the way it is?", or "what happened before the big bang?", but to get from that question to any specific description of a transcendent being is a leap of faith. It's only by being able to detect such a being that we could verify any claims about it.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack Well, if we are to talk about the Creator (or the cause of everything) by definition "IT" has to exist before the starting of the universe. Asking the existence of such a being within the perception of science which deals things within the universe is self contradictory. That's why objective reasoning i.e. a reasoning without pre conceived ideas is quite difficult. The moment we start to define reality and deduce a truth out of this definition we fall to be prejudiced.
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack In other words, if the Creator existed before creating this universe by definition He transcends this universe, Asking a proof of his existence withing this universe is self contradictory (such as asking to see him etc. since we can't even see everything within the universe how can we see the cause of it), while the very existence of this universe proves the existence of the Creator from His "point of view."
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated Perhaps, but again, being transcendent, you couldn't make any claims about such a "Creator" other than it being an agent which caused the start of the universe. You can't even assert the Creator is sentient or intelligent. Not so much a Creator, then, but a Cause.
Even that assumes that Time existed before the start of the universe, which may not be the case. If time did not exist, there was no cause of the universe, because cause and effect are temporal in nature.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "...Not so much a Creator, then, but a Cause."
Hmm! regardless, to claim such a thing then you have tyo have something more than secience, since science can't tell who is sentient or not. As long as you can;t explain each and everything within this universe with science including consciosuness and free will, what ever you say about the unknown is mere a speculation not a law or scietific fact. (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "... because cause and effect are temporal in nature."
This expression, actually is scientitfcally self contradictory. The only way "hypothesize"a contiunous universe is depending on the Black Holes and they are the edge of the time and space the way we know it i.e. singulariy i.e. timelessness and spacelessness. (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack 3-) One way or another, as a conscious and conscience being, you are the product of T&S lessness. The question is which one do you prefer; Being theproduct of an unconscious and conscience, universe or being created by conscious and conscience. If you choose the former then you have to show any prtoof that your conscious and sense of consceince has units within this uiniverse and come emerge of their own when there is enough units collected together. (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated (cont.) Furthermore, if one claims that the transcendent Creator has any influence inside the universe, then immediately the argument that the Creator is beyond the perception of science goes completely out the window. If influence manifests in our universe, that influence should be detectable and verifiable by science. If no influence can be verified by science, then the Creator is, at best, irrelevant to our existence.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HunchbackJack "Furthermore, if one claims that the transcendent Creator has any influence inside the universe, then immediately the argument that the Creator is beyond the perception of science goes completely out the window."
Thsi is a huge assumption. It is an assumption because even within this universe we coudln;t explain everything as they were yet, therefore we don't know science as we know it could explain everything at all ... (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack 5-) as well as we don't know whether it will confirm the existenc eof a creator in the and as well. Beyond that if you claim that science is the key to decide in this issue, then people before science had no chance to find about the truth as well developing the ethics, Do you see any atheist through history developing a moral society from start? NO. Therefore, Atheism is a established faith over a well defined morality, simply by ignoring the source of that morality.(cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack 6-) Morality is the key in reasoning, because if you have a preconceived idea and if you force it, then your reasoning is immoral because preconceived ideas from the dogmas. Truth on the other hand is the key science or reasoning or religion etc. won't falter it and they coexist in hramony within the truth.
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "If influence manifests in our universe, that influence should be detectable and verifiable by science."
Again self contradictory statment. Science claims that it can explain events without bringing the concept of a creator into the issue. That is why Darwin talks about "Natural Selection" instead of "the way of god." Once you start with such a mind set, one wonders what kind of verification you are talking about. Also with this you lose the defense "god of the unknown" as well
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "If no influence can be verified by science, then the Creator is, at best, irrelevant to our existence"
So, you agree that you can't prove the existence of a creator directly by five senses? If so then why don't you define science as the effort to understand the actions of that Creator. Einstein did for example he said that he didn't believe that god throws dice with the universe. Apperantly there is no need to be an Atheist to be a sceintist. (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack 8-) "If no influence can be verified by science, then the Creator is, at best, irrelevant to our existence."
There is no perfect ecosystem in the universe since we don't see energy forming matter of its own. So assuming that the universe is created and left alone of its own is not a scientific approach at all. like every system in our universe perhaps the very universe itself need an outside source to continue. and ther is a sceintific support for this approach; DARK MATTER >>
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack >> Dark Matter, is a concept to explain why galaxies are satying together even though there is not enough mass in them to do so. No one can observe DM, no one really knows that it exists. Scientifically it should be there. So, scientifcally for our universe to maintain its existence the way it is we hypothesize an unreal existence such as DM. What is it now, sceince of the unknown or imperceptable? Think about it, how much did science really explained than?? >>>
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack > Did science really explained anything at all? Considering that a Persian Muslim, a devout Muslim, a religious individual (Ibn MIsqyawayh) established the evolution theory centuries before Darwin one should consider that today's science could well be a very profitable popularity contests, instead of explaining the universe at all. The truth though until we come to DM there are many things science can't explain should be enough of a verification for the influence of a Creator -End
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated I'm sorry, your discourse was too long and discursive for me to address every point.
Let me just say that the universe may have had a cause, but I don't think that is evidence of a sentient Creator, as we know nothing about the nature of that cause. One could choose to believe the cause was a sentient Creator, but the fact that the universe began is not, in itself, supporting evidence of that.
(cont.)
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "I'm sorry, your discourse was too long and discursive for me to address every point"
I stated contradictions in your reasoning. If youcan focus on them epsond to them that would be enough.
"Let me just say that the universe may have had a cause, but I don't think that is evidence of a sentient Creator"
I will let you say that but on what basis you claim such a thing. From what kind of reasoning you conclude this? (cntd).
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack 2-) Look you are just saying thinsg yet you don't explain why. I will give you an example.
"One could choose to believe the cause was a sentient Creator, but the fact that the universe began is not, in itself, supporting evidence of that."
This contradicts with the scientific knowledge. BECAUSE, For matter to start Energy is need to be converted into matter. Energy, by its nature escapes and escapes sintead cumulating and condensing. (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack 4-) So, if you claim to be scientific, supporting evidence is right there you simply to chose ignoring it with the preset mind that assumes it can be someday explained in scietific formulas. This is your religion and this is your dogma and this is your god.
See, I said there is a contradiction and I explained it all you have to disproive this is to show that energy turns into matter of its own. So by simply saying something you are not tellling anything. (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated (cont.) Furthermore, while I agree that a sentient Creator would be beyond the reach of science to detect or analyse if it were outside the universe, I think that such a being is both irrelevant (because it has no influence), and completely unknowable, and we can make no verifiable claims about it - including claims either way of its existence.
I try not to believe anything that can't be verified as true. What reason would I have to do so?
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack 3-) Because of this nature of the energy to start the universe with a big bang and form matter a consciosu or deilberate action is required to bring that energy together.
Noiw we have no idea what was ther before universe started, but according to the formula E=mc2 there should be enough energy to form this universe. This is what our science says and scietifically conscious act is required to form the universe, since we can't observe energy forming matter of its own. (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated Matter did not come from energy at the big bang. Both matter and energy came from a super-dense *something* - either very dense matter, very high energy, or something neither matter nor energy. The matter and energy that resulted from the big bang are both lower-energy states than what preceded them.
We see energy become matter. Black holes give off x-rays due to that process.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack 5-) "and completely unknowable"
Even though I agree with you this is not not issue at hand. We are talking about the "EXISTENCE" of a creator, not what we can know about "IT." BTW, where did you get the idea that you can know about the Creator?
"we can make no verifiable claims about it - including claims either way of its existence."
Again, you contradict, Belief? Faith? You want to bypass these and claim ceratinity over smtng you can only obtain via reasoning (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "Matter did not come from energy at the big bang."
How do you know this?
Also, very high or not energy is energy, Why r u trying to dispute what I said with such cirular expression? Support ur argument with scientific explanations please other wise my explanation and the connection to the formula E= mc2 is solid. U can;t refute what I said with speculations. (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated "Why r u trying to dispute what I said with such cirular expression?"
Let me put it another way then. Energy and mass are different states of the same thing, which is why we can convert between them (as E=mc^2 shows). But it takes a lot of energy to create even a small amount of mass, which is why we don't see energy turning to mass except at the subatomic level.
(cont.)
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HunchbackJack "Let me put it another way then"
Oh! please let me.
"which is why we don't see energy turning to mass except at the subatomic level"
ENERGY DOESN'T TURN INTO MATTER OF ITS OWN. THERE IS NO NATURAL OCCURENCE PROVES OTHERWISE. THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS THE PARTICLE ACCELERATORS WHICH NECESSITATES THE CONSCIOUS ACT OF HUMANS.
Still, this isn't a proof for pure energy turning into matter afterall.
So why?
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated (cont.) At the big bang, however, there was a superhot superdense singularity, from which massive amounts of both energy and mass were produced as it expanded. This was possible because the matter and energy produced were at a lower energy state (ie were "cooler") than the original singularity. They needed a Creator no more than a pan of melted butter needs a Creator to make it solidify as it cools. It was a natural product of the expanding singularity.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "At the big bang, however, there was a superhot superdense singularity"
Really? how do you know this? where did it come from? are you trying to bring a scientific guess work as a scientific fact? Thgis is not even a legitimate theory since no one knows what was there before the big bang and shortly after it occured as well, as the guess work goes the universe expanded faster than light within the first miniscule moments. (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated I'm describing the current big bang theory. I don't know where the singularity came from, but I'm not making any claims about that. I'm responding to your assertions that:
a) energy can't turn into matter spontaneously, and therefore
b) a Creator was needed at the big bang in order to turn energy into matter
Both of these assertions are wrong. Energy does turn into matter spontaneously, and matter was created at the big bang as the expanding singularity cooled.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "Both of these assertions are wrong"
Where is the refuting argument then?
"Energy does turn into matter spontaneously"
Where? there is no such thing you are making this up.
"and matter was created at the big bang as the expanding singularity cooled."
how can you claim that thereis such a singularity if you don't know where did it come form.
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated "Where [does energy turn into matter]?"
As I explained, energy turning into matter is why black holes emit X-rays. Quantum fluctuations of energy create matter/antimatter particle pairs, one of which is consumed by the black hole; the existence of the other particle causes an x-ray to be emitted.
"how can you claim that thereis such a singularity if you don't know where did it come form"
I don't know where it came from, but the evidence suggests that's how the universe began.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HunchbackJack "As I explained, energy turning into matter is why black holes emit X-rays"
No it is "thought" that the gasses that fall into the black holes cause that x Ray emission. Check Ur personal messages I gave a reference for this.
"Quantum fluctuations of energy create matter/antimatter particle pairs, one of which is consumed by the black hole; the existence of the other particle causes an x-ray to be emitted."
NO. U R making this up. there is no such thing. (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "I don't know where it came from, but the evidence suggests that's how the universe began"
LOL! "evidence suggests"? So, humans being conscious doesn't suggest that they are from a higher consciousness? Are U for real? Besides there is no such evidence that suggests that there was a singularity in the beginning. Just like m doesn't turn into E of its own no body observed a singularity much less it cause a universe at all. U bring guess works as if they are scientific facts.
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated "LOL! "evidence suggests"?"
Yes, evidence, based on our understanding of physical laws, and what conditions would have been like in the first few moments of the universe. And verified *precisely* by the microwave background radiation.
Even if we weren't so certain of the singularity, there's no credence to the claims that "matter can't come from energy" or that "a Creator was needed to create matter from energy at the Big Bang". Basic physics disproves those.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "Yes"
NO.
"evidence, based on our understanding of physical laws"
The only physical laws we understand is within this universe not out. So U R imagining things.
"and what conditions would have been like in the first few moments of the universe"
That would be, again a guess work.
"And verified *precisely* by the microwave background radiation."
What is verified with BR is that there is a beginning of the universe, the rest doesn't tell what you claim.
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "Even if we weren't so certain of the singularity, there's no credence to the claims that "matter can't come from energy""
I wonder what kind of credence you ask for. For you to accept what I say what should be there and you would accept?
"that "a Creator was needed to create matter from energy at the Big Bang""
Again what kind of credence you ask for other than energy is not forming matter unless conscious act is involved?
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack > As U see reasoning is more of an ethical issue I stated so many contradictions in UR arguments none is addressed I asked scietific proofs none satisfied, I asked thesources of your information to decide about thelegitimacy of UR reasoning again none satisfied.
UR an Atheist U R supposed to be rational, U R supposed to bring ethics without the fear of "God."
So, where is it? Where is the proper ethics which prevents U lying, or making false accusations?
Fussinated 2 months ago
"So, humans being conscious doesn't suggest that they are from a higher consciousness?"
I'm not making any claims about that. I'm simply responding to your assertion that the big bang theory provides supporting evidence for the existence of a sentient Creator. That's all.
It's disappointing that when I describe what the Big Bang Theory *actually* demonstrates, you simply refuse to accept it because it invalidates your claim.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HunchbackJack "I'm not making any claims about that. I'm simply responding to your assertion that the big bang theory provides supporting evidence for the existence of a sentient Creator. That's all"
Sadly, U R not doing that. Also, you miss the point that what U call as evidence is no more credible than a logical statment which could be put in many different ways for anything with the same legitimacy.
Fussinated 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HunchbackJack "It's disappointing that when I describe what the Big Bang Theory *actually* demonstrates, you simply refuse to accept it because it invalidates your claim"
It is disappointing when U start speaking lies such as E turning into m spontaneously, There was a singularity before the universe etc. Contradictions too. U say T & S leessness does not create anything yet to save UR argument, U claim exactly the opposite, U even claim the physics within a singularity is predicted SIGH! >
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack > Also I answered UR question even silly ones u talk about butter. How do you think U invalidated anything I said? I asked U repeatedly from where U R getting UR information to reach UR conclusions. Instead of giving straight answers U delved into scientific guess work (not even true theories).
U simply refuse the fact that E doesn't turn into m without conscious act, yet you claim that I refuse what U say. This is called projection in psychology. U accuse me with what U do >
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated I have explained repeatedly how matter *can* comes from energy (Hawking radiation), and how matter was created naturally soon after the big bang. This is not "guess work" - it is established scientific theory, validated by strong evidence (MBR).
These claims are the crux of your argument that the big bang provides evidence of a creator. I have refuted them. Simply continuing to restate both the incorrect facts and the invalid argument does not make it true.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "I have explained repeatedly"
NO, you mentioned guess works of scientists. However you forgot to mention about VIRTUAL PARTICALS and how they ARE assigned real mass VALUES arbitrarily by scientists etc. Either you have no clue what you are talking about or you make those scientific guess work lie for you.
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated "However you forgot to mention about VIRTUAL PARTICALS and how they ARE assigned real mass VALUES arbitrarily by scientists etc."
Not at all. Virtual particles *are* the matter/antimatter particle pairs I referred to. Virtual particles have mass; they do exist - just for a limited time. They are created by quantum fluctuations in energy.
"Either you have no clue what you are talking about or you make those scientific guess work lie for you"
There is a third option.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "Virtual particles have mass"
You should really learn what U R talking about.
"They(virtual particles) are ALLOWED to have mass (which consists of "borrowed energy"[citation needed]) because they exist for only a temporary time, which in turn gives them a limited "range". "
This is because of the uncertainityprincipal i.e. the momentum they create. That is why the mass value of a Virtual particle could be plus or minus.
LEARN RATHER UNDERSTAND WHAT U R TALKING ABOUT.
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated "That is why the mass value of a Virtual particle could be plus or minus."
This doesn't negate anything I've said. You've claimed energy can't be converted to matter by anything other than a Creator. Virtual particles are energy converted to matter. Short-lived matter, granted, but matter nonetheless.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HunchbackJack "This doesn't negate anything I've said"
LOL! Yes it does LOL! this is the difference between real prticle and a virtual particle. Virtual particle is assigned a mass while real particel HAS real mass.
"Again, nothing here negates what I've said"
U R negated completely. you just want to hang on the layman explanations or .. you simply have this much understanding of the issue.
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "There is a third option"
Is there now?
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated (cntd) A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated "A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields."
Again, nothing here negates what I've said. Photons can be modeled as either particles or waves; a virtual particle can be modeled as a wave as well, but that doesn't make it any less a (short-lived) particle.
E=mc^2 shows that energy can be converted to mass. VPs are an example.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "E=mc^2 shows that energy can be converted to mass."
I said this to you, remember?
"VPs are an example."
They are examples that energy state of a closed system might become unstable and we can apply them in our calculations for this state as if they are real particles, but they are not and their mass is no more than a ripple in the space than they themselves are not real.
Fussinated 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fussinated ""E=mc^2 shows that energy can be converted to mass." I said this to you, remember?"
Indeed. Yet you seem to think that it doesn't actually happen.
"They are examples that energy state of a closed system might become unstable and we can apply them in our calculations for this state as if they are real particles, but they are not and their mass is no more than a ripple in the space than they themselves are not real."
Not accurate. Particles can be modeled as ripples.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@Fussinated It's insanely late here where I am, so I will leave you with the last word.
Thanks for the discussion. I found it very interesting - particularly all the physics at the end.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "Thanks for the discussion"
I am not sure there was any.
"I found it very interesting - particularly all the physics at the end."
Well, again I'm not sure because evenb the physicists themselves don't claim that they can explain everything with the existing theories, yet the layman acts like science explained everything for good and accepting that the universe is the creator of a conscious creator is flat out false.
Anyway YW and have a restful sleep.
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack Excerpt from profmattrassler com
The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HunchbackJack "These claims are the crux of your argument"
No the real crux is that yoiu want me accept a scientific guess work as undeniable truth. You simply try to dodge the real issue, and explain the source for your information. For example, Do Black Holes cause loss of information? What is the relation of loos of information and Hawking Radiation? Are you aware that if Hawking Radiation undermines scientific reasoning more than reasoning due to its lead to Information Loss?
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack Seriously, before you accuse someone how much you know about things you claim you know yourself?
Fussinated 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fussinated "Seriously, before you accuse someone how much you know about things you claim you know yourself?"
Of what have I accused you?
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack Also you claimed that Time & Space lessness can't create anything yet now you claim a singularity which is where time and space can't be defined, caused the Universe out of the blue.
Fussinated 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fussinated "now you claim a singularity which is where time and space can't be defined, caused the Universe out of the blue"
No one knows where the singularity came from; no one understands why it started expanding. No one knows the cause of the universe, or whether there was a cause.
But evidence (eg microwave background radiation) strongly suggests that the expanding superhot superdense singularity existed, and we understand how it produced matter and energy by natural processes.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack (cntd) Here is the contradiction. According to current "theories" if some moves faster than light it can move back in time. Then universe should have collapsed ont itself a t the very beginning of itself.
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "They needed a Creator no more than a pan of melted butter needs a Creator to make it solidify as it cools."
This is true i.e. melted butter needs the Creator to solidify as well, unless you claim that butter has conscious and it itself determined the principals of soldification process for itself again. Do you claim such a thing?
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated You're claiming that God causes a pan of butter to solidify as it cools? Really?
I would claim that simple chemistry does that; it needs no intelligent agent.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HunchbackJack "You're claiming that God causes a pan of butter to solidify as it cools? Really?"
Now, now first prove your claims about that energy turns into matter spontenausly. The rest should be easy don't move ahead of yourself
I would claim that simple chemistry does that; it needs no intelligent agent
The I sure hope U have a solid information about who determined the laws of "simple chemistry." Chemicals themselves or an unconsious source or what? or is it another guess work?
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated We don't know what caused the big bang (of anything). We can't make any claims about that cause, if it exists - including the claim that it was a sentient being.
I'm not claiming it *wasn't* a sentient being; I'm saying that there's no basis for claiming it *was* - or for claiming anything about the cause, if there was one.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HunchbackJack 4-) "Furthermore, while I agree that a sentient Creator would be beyond the reach of science to detect or analyse if it were outside the universe, I think that such a being is both irrelevant (because it has no influence)"
Why do you think that way? Where is your reasoning line here? (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "I try not to believe anything that can't be verified as true. What reason would I have to do so?"
The question is is your conscious advanced enough to recognize the verifiable, or your mind open enough to understand the proof? Thgis is not a matter of IQ this is a matter of ethics.
Fussinated 2 months ago
@Fussinated Lastly, a few of your statements run along the lines of: "Science can't confirm or deny the existence of a Creator outside the universe. So why not believe in him?"
My answer is simply: I have no reason to.
Certainly the fact that there are things we don't understand - including whether the universe had a cause and, if so, its nature - and the fact that science can't disprove a sentient Creator living beyond our powers of detection, are not reasons to believe in one.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack "Lastly, a few of your statements run along the lines of: "Science can't confirm or deny the existence of a Creator outside the universe. So why not believe in him?" "
If you'd read what carefully I also said that with your very own approach by claiming that science could and should explain events without even considering the presence of a Creator you lose to come up with such a defense, God of the unknown.
I will explain this. (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack Explanation;
First establish the contexts what I said. Science is incapable of explaining of everything. If you believe in science you have no excuse not believe in religion as well.
Second, believing in a Creator does not prevent someone to try to understand universe i.e. producing scientfic thought.
Third, as a conscious being, assuming what you don't know or understand, is understood and known by higher being is quite meaningful, rather than beliving in the void. cntd
Fussinated 2 months ago
@HunchbackJack Explanation cntd;
"the fact that science can't disprove a sentient Creator living beyond our powers of detection, are not reasons to believe in one."
U r going ahead of me, I never claimed such a thing. to the contrary I am trying to show you that the existence of the Creator is provable not scientifically thogh. I dare u to prove that U R a conscious being and UR conscious originates to this universe. (this is redundant now) (cntd)
Fussinated 2 months ago
I laughed hard when matt hung up on him lol
mrliberalatheist1 2 months ago
Matt D. Lost. Lol
TheFaafia 2 months ago
The guy is smart enough to know that Matt D. is undermining his whole premise, which is designed to start really abstract and then build on that abstraction to suggest the existence of God. That's why he has to defend this seemingly indefensible point. It's the linchpin of his argument.
jontv 2 months ago
The third option is information. With no minds nobody can built abstract logical consistent interpretations upon them.
zorange12345 2 months ago
they are what they are ... I AM THAT I AM God said...
mengugreg 2 months ago
what about paradoxes? The truth value of the statement "This statement is false" is both true and false, i.e., it is what it is and it is not what it is and also it violates the law of excluded middle.
oscaringoliling0 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The 3rd option IS the logical absolutes themselves. Whether or not a mind can assess a thing is what it is and is not what it is not, it still is what it is and is not what it is not what it is not.
lunarpoetry1015 3 months ago
Comment removed
lunarpoetry1015 3 months ago
3rd option....
Jump in nothiness to defend your position....
haha..
Stop.
Fail.
donclesconforms 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. Therefore is plausible God exists.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
I think what he was trying to say is that logic is conceptual because it does not exist if we don't conceive of it; but this is wrong. Logic is a way of contecting events and coming up with conclusions (in short); logic can be classified as a law in terms of it's ability to describe or infer reality. This is similar to the laws of physics. We conceived of them, but they existed before we conceived of them. They are not physical or conceptual in their own existance, but they exist.
ludogogo 3 months ago
This basically summarises a lot of the theists position. "I don't know what it could be, therefore X. And if you don't know what it is either, you have to agree with X." Why do some people have such an issue with just saying "I don't know". This is tantamount to saying- "This photographed flying saucer is either a fake photo or it's aliens." It's the person making the claim that has to demonstrate that's a correct dichotomy, not the one doubting it.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
And furthermore, they spent the last 6 minutes scratching their heads, hahaha.
cocoonbreach 4 months ago
LOL, they are what they are and we're gonna stop. Matt Dillahunty lost the argument and ended the call immediately.
cocoonbreach 4 months ago
Slick still doesn't understand that the two options is incorrect. It's been explained to him by several people (myself included) but he still doesn't understand remedial logic. He starts insulting you if you correct him. Slick is a class A dick.
huntmatuk 4 months ago
I thought Dillahunty had to get to all those other callers??????? lol
ashoover12 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Like Dillahunty said in pt. 1 many people watch and listen to this stuff later on and are late to the current debate. Thats me. But i thought it was a very interesting debate until the usual smart Dillahunty could not answer the question. Instead of being honest about it he cuts slick off and ends the debate.
ashoover12 5 months ago
Like Dillahunty said in pt. 1 many people watch and listen to this stuff later on and are late to the current debate. Thats me. But i thought it was a very interesting debate until the usual smart Dillahunty could not answer the question. Instead of being honest about it he cuts slick off and ends the debate.
ashoover12 5 months ago
LMAO just when Dillahunty knew he knew Slick was right he said " Theres more callers".....FUCKIN LOSER LOL
mas03 5 months ago
@mas03 Slick was right? are you kidding me? there's more than 2 options than physical or cenceptual...matt slick even admitted this later on when matt dillahunty asked what his god was (physical or conceptual). and y'know what matt slick said? he said, "god is neither"
chadwick0091 5 months ago
@mas03 Slick was right? are you kidding me? there's more than 2 options than physical or cenceptual...matt slick even admitted this later on when matt dillahunty asked what his god was (physical or conceptual). and y'know what matt slick said? he said, "god is neither"
chadwick0091 5 months ago
@chadwick0091 Thats because its God. But Dillahunty doesnt believe there is a God.
mas03 5 months ago
@mas03 right. i was just trying to point out that matt slick was wrong here with his argument which was: "there's only 2 options, physical or conceptual"
chadwick0091 5 months ago
@chadwick0091 well what other options are there
mas03 5 months ago
@mas03 non-conceptual and non-physical
chadwick0091 5 months ago
@chadwick0091 So you're saying Nothing is an option. Nice
mas03 5 months ago
@mas03 nooo i'm not saying that at all. non-conceptual and non-physical means ANYTHING besides conceptual or physical...one thing that fits in that category is supernatural/meta-physical...just on a personal note, i don't believe that the supernatural/meta-physical even exists, but it's still possible.
chadwick0091 5 months ago
@chadwick0091 non-conceptual and non-physical means ANYTHING besides conceptual or physical, but you're not telling me what the 3rd option is. You said there is more than 2 options, but you cant give me at least one more. Since you havent provided the 3rd option we have 2 options and if one of them is wrong the other one automatically becomes the true one.
mas03 5 months ago
@mas03 no it doesn't mean that. just b/c i can't give you an example, does not mean that the other possible options (non-conceptual or non-physical) are excluded.
chadwick0091 5 months ago
@chadwick0091 what "other possibilities" ? You're saying other but you cant name one. This is the EXACT same thing atheists use on christians. When Theists say we believe there is a god Atheists say until there is EVIDENCE/PROF we arent going to believe you. We can say the same thing you are saying " Just because I cant think of a reason why he exists doesnt mean he doesnt. You are doing the same thing here you are saying just because I cant name another option doesnt mean there isent one.
mas03 5 months ago
@mas03 first, i NEVER said that "b/c you can't think of a reason why he exists, doesn't mean he doesn't" i've never made the claim that god doesn't exist. second, since you seem to want everything to be physical or conceptual, is your god physical or conceptual?
chadwick0091 5 months ago
@chadwick0091 first, I NEVER said that you said that you said it, Iam speaking up Atheists in general. So are you an Atheist or an Agnostic? 2. God is neither because he is God. By the nature of God god is neither
mas03 5 months ago
Comment removed
chadwick0091 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mas03 I'm Atheist Agnostic. but yes, it is possible that your god is neither conceptual or physical...or in other words, NON-conceptual and NON-physical...so, as far as we know, those are all of the options. 1. physical 2. conceptual 3. non-physical 4. non-conceptual. so, options 3 and 4 can be summed up into one option as Neither
chadwick0091 5 months ago
@mas03 TAG relies on everything supposedly being conceptual or physical. If your God is supposedly neither physical or conceptual then you have just shown that TAG is false.
ClosedAperture 5 months ago
@ClosedAperture Everything besides God. But even if I didnt know which one God would be how would that prove that TAG is false.
mas03 5 months ago
@mas03 TAG relies on a supposed dichotomy. Everything is either conceptual or physical. This 'true dichotomy' is vital to the argument, if your God is neither conceptual or physical then there is no true dichotomy and therefore the argument is false. There are so many things wrong with TAG that it is almost laughably absurd that anyone still tries to use it as an argument for the existence of a God.
ClosedAperture 5 months ago
@ClosedAperture That is not true because "God" is transcended to the reality that we experience.
IamGarySimpson 4 months ago
@IamGarySimpson One could argue that the LAs are also transcendent; they are neither physical nor conceptual, they are the fundamental principles on which our reality depend. As such, they require no mind to conceive of them in order to exist.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 3 months ago