Should we work to get rid of Christianity?

[Tetsugaku]

They are eternal as they are part of the nature of God. But they did not exist at T=0 within this universe because this universe did not exist.

There was a Time = 0, when this universe did not exist and therefore the laws of logic did not exist in this universe.

Again, unsupported that there was ever any such Time=0.

I am not trying to justify anything, I am just stating a fact that it is a rational assumption.

It's neither rational, nor justified, nor a fact.

No, I gave you the name of the primary source.

Unless your primary source says more than your secondary source, it's of no use to you whatsoever. And if it does, then you need to quote it.

No, the causation only occurred in one dimension of time, just not ours.

We were talking of the creation of the universe, meaning the cause would be in God's temporal dimension while the effect would be in ours. But in any case, we still have no experience of this kind of causation, which means any inductive or abductive case based upon such speculation is undermined.

I did and nothing you said refuted my point.

Nothing you said addressed my refutation.

Well respected doctors and nurses observed it. Read the book I provided the name of.

This is still mere anecdote. And no, I'm not going to go and read an entire book if you aren't going to make a case for its claims.

I am not saying it cannot be the mind, I am only saying my interpretation is just as likely as yours.

I'm still waiting for you to present your criteria for attributing intentionality, or to at least explain why you think this would require the mind to be more than a pattern of firing neurons and synapses. Obviously I disagree that substance dualism is just as likely or plausible as non-reductive functionalism.

 

[5wize]

Almost all the predators you reference kill and eat their own species and their young. So does that mean it is ok for us to do that?

That was a specific list of animals that protect their young and each other with social herding. They somehow believe that it is worthwhile defending their group above all others. That defines special.

Yes, but the emotions regarding the specialness or even the non-specialness of humans are subjective.

Nope. Human morals are based on common objective human drives. The Christian God is not a source of morality at all as a result of how Christian scripture describes Him. His thoughts and actions are purely subjective.

Some humans dont think other humans are special. So how do you determine whose emotions are correct? Obviously Jeffery Dahmer thought that the men he wanted to kill and eat were not special. Or maybe he did think they were special so that is why he killed and ate them. Since it is all based on emotion, how do you determine what is the right emotion?

Again, if the best you have is the sociopathic outlier to support a point of common human character, you have lost the argument. You have lost the argument.

Yes, Christian morality is based on God's objectively existing moral character.

God has no objective moral character by definition. What He does is subjective based on His whim.

He knows our human realities and what is best for us better than we do since He created us and we are made in His image. If you invented a new car, you would know what is best for the car, right?

It doesn't seem so as much of His creation is diseased, violent, and corrupt.

For true Christians there is no "or else."

For ALL Christians there is an "or else". They are just good at psychological compartmentalization. They tuck that one away.

 

[5wize]

How can morality come from amorality? That appears irrational on the face of it.

Because amorality, immorality, or morality is not a "thing" that begets other things like a squirrel begets a squirrel or a human begets a human. Morality/immorality/amorality is merely an effect of our nature.

There are different types of purposes. There are long term overall purposes, which is what you appear to be referring to, Then there are purposes for day to day life and structures God gave living things in order to live in a primarily natural law universe and survive like eyes and ears and arms and legs and etc. The fact that things exist in the universe with purposes is evidence that the universe was created by a personal being because only persons can create purposes.

But you claim we don't need those purposes of day to day life as you believe the mind and all the sensations it gathers does not require any of that based on your NDE threads. You are stuck there, ping ponging between mind, sensation, and body and you change all the rules of their interaction to fit whatever specific argument you are trying to support. That's how we know your beliefs have little veracity as they lack consistency.

 

[El Cid]

You've said several things I'm not sure are true here. My understanding is that at the big bang and just after there were no particles. Also, the universe being natural doesn't necessarily mean everything would act in a random, chaotic nature. Things could only act according to their properties, which means not in the way describe.

Some atheists think the universe came into existence from a quantum fluctuation. Quantum fluctuations are random and chaotic.

However, to ask how did logic become incorporated into the universe seems to misunderstand what logic is about. The Law of Identity isn't a thing with a nature like Gravity, it's more a description of the nature of things. You seem to have not taken on board my explanation of what the Law of Identity is all about. A thing can only be what it is, and this doesn't need to be incorporated into the universe because this state of affairs is the only way things can be.

Some scientists believe that quantum mechanics violate laws of logic, some believe that quantum particles pop into and out of existence without a cause. So if the universe was the result of a quantum fluctuation, then maybe the whole universe would have violated laws of logic. Things would pop into and out of existence without causes. But as it turns out our universe does not operate that way, it is orderly and logical. Which is what would be expected if the cause of the universe was an intelligent and logical Creator.

Ok.

Good.

 

[El Cid]

No, I really don't think the view is that prior to the BB the laws of physics didn't exist, but that as conditions were so extreme and different to what they are now, our current understanding of them breaks down.

At time = 0, it is unlikely they existed since there was no matter for them to operate on or produce behavior for.

 

[Eightcrackers]

At time = 0, it is unlikely they existed since there was no matter for them to operate on or produce behavior for.

On what do you base this assessment?
Do you have prior experience of physical laws predating (or not) matter and energy?

 

[Eightcrackers]

But as it turns out our universe does not operate that way, it is orderly and logical. Which is what would be expected if the cause of the universe was an intelligent and logical Creator.

This is a fallacy called affirming the consequent. Here is another example:

if there was an arsonist, the building would have burned down,
the building burned down,
thus, there was an arsonist.

If A, then B
B,
therefore, A.

 

[Whatsisface]

Some atheists think the universe came into existence from a quantum fluctuation. Quantum fluctuations are random and chaotic.

If only some think this then that the universe came from one isn't an established fact. Besides, that they happen, even if randomly, means that their happening is allowed within the properties of the universe which means the universe isn't accidental in the sense of some kind of fluke, but rather it's inevitable.

Some scientists believe that quantum mechanics violate laws of logic, some believe that quantum particles pop into and out of existence without a cause. So if the universe was the result of a quantum fluctuation, then maybe the whole universe would have violated laws of logic. Things would pop into and out of existence without causes. But as it turns out our universe does not operate that way, it is orderly and logical. Which is what would be expected if the cause of the universe was an intelligent and logical Creator.

The universe would also be the the way it is because of the absence of any God to interfere with it's natural workings that could only be down to it's properties.

Besides, nothing can violate the laws of logic here. Even if the universe came into existence from a quantum fluctuation, or that Quantum fluctuations are random and chaotic, then that doesn't violate the Law of Identity, because that is what they are.

 

[Whatsisface]

At time = 0, it is unlikely they existed since there was no matter for them to operate on or produce behavior for.

I would be very careful here, there is such a lot we don't know about this. For example, can there ever be a time = 0? To put it another way, can there be a time when time didn't exist?

On a light hearted note, here is a quote I like....

“People assume time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff”​

Steven Moffat.

 

[Tetsugaku]

At time = 0, it is unlikely they existed since there was no matter for them to operate on or produce behavior for.

There was never any time zero, as this would have to be a moment before the first moment of time, which is contradictory.

 

[El Cid]

I don’t know what you’re asking me to explain. What in what I’ve said are you struggling with?

Explain your post no. 1271.

 

[El Cid]

We've been over this already. They are also the intrinsic characteristics of an event. The defining characteristic distinguishing an effect from an event is that of having a cause. So you are begging the question by assuming every event must be an effect. That is what you need to show rather than just assume.

Yes we have and so far you have not been able to differentiate between an event and effect intrinsically.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Yes we have and so far you have not been able to differentiate between an event and effect intrinsically.

Because the difference is not an intrinsic one. But that's not license to start conflating them.

 

[El Cid]

Back to induction again? All known effects have been caused from prior states in time, making any cause for the universe of space and time impossible. Thus induction remains neutral overall on whether or not the universe was caused.

I have dealt with this before, see my post about a second dimension of time.

That doesn't sound right. Source?

Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology" Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A 314 (1970): 529-548.

My understanding is that Hawking & Penrose developed theorems of relativity showing how singularities, i.e. black holes, could form, and that they then applied these ideas to the beginning of the universe. But that the universe had a beginning was an extrapolation from empirical observations of expansion and the background microwave radiation.

Yes, you basically got it.

 

[Tetsugaku]

I have dealt with this before, see my post about a second dimension of time.

You have not yet dealt with my argument against induction being used to establish that the universe had a beginning. My argument takes into account your speculative claims about multiple dimensions of time and shows how this supposition only further undermines the inductive inference.

 

[El Cid]

I never said that true beliefs were selected for. I said that they were a side effect of generally reliable mechanisms that were selected for due to them being more adaptive than the alternative. You said that NS would then select against true information, which is patently absurd. There is no selective advantage in weeding out true information.

That is a just so story. There is no reason why true beliefs would be a side effect of generally reliable mechanisms, whatever those are.

Russell never made any such mistake. You really need to quote your sources better, because you seem to be misinterpreting most of what you are referring to. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what caused God, as the typical response then shows that there are exemptions to the demand that everything be caused, and this then opens the door to the universe possibly having the ontological status that theists wish to reserve for God. It is not an assumption that God was caused, but rather a means of uncovering the double standard and inconsistencies of the theistic argument that only God could have not been caused.

But he did make the mistake of assuming that causality says everyTHING must have a cause, rather than that every effect must have a cause. No the theistic argument is that theoretically there are things that are not effects and therefore do not need a cause. Theoretically there could be something other than God does not need a cause. But so far such a thing has not been discovered. But the First Cause cannot also be an effect otherwise there would be an infinite series of causes and effects and therefore we would never reach the present but obviously we have reached the present. So there was a first cause.

In any case, there is a difference in meaning between an event and a cause, yet the intrinsic characteristics are the same. So to avoid conflating them you need to look beyond intrinsic characteristics and consider the defining characteristic by which they are distinguished.

No see my previous post.

You know better than to conflate intention (human purpose) with intentionality (the aboutness of representational content). What if no mind was involved in taking the photograph? What if it was accidental, or controlled by AI? Would the exact same digital photograph then no longer be of or about my car?

They are the same thing. From Dictionary:
intentionality
[inˌten(t)SHəˈnalədē]

NOUN

1. the fact of being deliberate or purposive.
   synonyms:
   deliberateness · intent · design · calculation · premeditation · preconception · forethought · plan · planning · preplanning · advance planning · prearrangement · malice aforethought
   • philosophy
     the quality of mental states (e.g., thoughts, beliefs, desires, hopes) that consists in their being directed toward some object or state of affairs.
   
   If it was an accident or done by AI it would just be of the car not about the car.
   

 

[Tetsugaku]

That is a just so story. There is no reason why true beliefs would be a side effect of generally reliable mechanisms, whatever those are.

There is, and I explained it to you at length.

But he did make the mistake of assuming that causality says everyTHING must have a cause, rather than that every effect must have a cause. No the theistic argument is that theoretically there are things that are not effects and therefore do not need a cause. Theoretically there could be something other than God does not need a cause. But so far such a thing has not been discovered. But the First Cause cannot also be an effect otherwise there would be an infinite series of causes and effects and therefore we would never reach the present but obviously we have reached the present. So there was a first cause.

This does not engage with what Russell said, and the last part begs the question against an infinite past. You've still given no reason for thinking that the universe itself cannot be an event without a cause.

No see my previous post.

See my response to it.

They are the same thing.

They are not the same thing, as per the two very different definitions you just quoted.

If it was an accident or done by AI it would just be of the car not about the car.

Now there's a distinction without a difference. How then can you be sure your thoughts are about other things, rather than merely being of them?

 

[Lucian]

Explain your post no. 1271.

I’d be delighted to. What are you struggling with?

 

[El Cid]

The state the universe was in at the big bang was different to what it is now. Some scientists are speculating as to the physics of that state and also pre BB.

The consensus of cosmologists is that at time = 0 nothing existed. According to Dr. Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 edition of Natural History magazine. Space and time came into existence at the BB.

It's more rational in this case not to assume, but to wait for all the evidence to come in. If scientists assume, then the scientific method is designed to filter out any false assumptions. One of the stumbling blocks Einstein had working on relativity was assuming time was absolute. It wasn't until he realised it might be that everything fell into place.

Maybe but millions have and gotten to know the Creator of the Universe personally and He has confirmed that it is an effect.

Science is more thorough than you because it will filter out assumptions and with good reason.

Maybe but see above.

Btw, no scientist assumes the universe is an effect.

Yes there are some and many are very highly respected. Albert Einstein, Arno Penzias, Stanley Jaki, Polkinghorne, and Hugh Ross to name a few.

No, a general principle you see within the universe leads you to hastily assume it applies to the universe as a whole. This commits the fallacy of composition, thing something that applies to a part of the whole, applies to the whole.

No, the first explorers of space assumed that the laws of logic and physics applied outside the earth into space until proven otherwise and it turned out they were right. Just so it is rational to assume those things apply "outside" the universe until proven otherwise as well.

 

[Tetsugaku]

The consensus of cosmologists is that at time = 0 nothing existed. According to Dr. Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 edition of Natural History magazine. Space and time came into existence at the BB.

There is no such consensus at all, and in fact a time=0 is impossible, as I explained above. Space and time having a beginning would mean that there is a time=1, not a time=0.

Maybe but millions have and gotten to know the Creator of the Universe personally and He has confirmed that it is an effect.

Religious delusions are not evidence. No-one has managed to verify the existence of the object of their faith. That's why it's still faith and not science.

Yes there are some and many are very highly respected. Albert Einstein, Arno Penzias, Stanley Jaki, Polkinghorne, and Hugh Ross to name a few.

Quote their arguments and evidence then. Otherwise this is just an appeal to authority.

No, the first explorers of space assumed that the laws of logic and physics applied outside the earth into space until proven otherwise and it turned out they were right. Just so it is rational to assume those things apply "outside" the universe until proven otherwise as well.

Logic is a priori and necessary, so it was already fully known that it would and must apply in space. But universal causation is not a law of logic, and is not even known to hold inside the universe, never mind to the universe as a whole.