Is the First Cause argument Valid?

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I don't believe there is an overarching purpose to the evolution of one species of evolved great apes, that evolved just 200k years ago, in a universe that's existed for billions of years, and obviously because there is no objective evidence for this claim. What is irrational about that?

You still haven't solved this one:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

So what is the objective evidence for the assumptions in naturalism?
And by the way which version of objective are you using and which one are you taking for granted?

 

[Sheldon]

You still haven't solved this one:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

So what is the objective evidence for the assumptions in naturalism?
And by the way which version of objective are you using and which one are you taking for granted?

Well I've tried, but you're on ignore, as this is one non sequitur straw man too many for me, sorry.

 

[Suave]

Such a question is currently unanswerable, so at present there's nothing to base any conclusion on.

What if cosmic rays are observed travelling predominately along the axes of the lattice of our simulated universe/Matrix in contrast to being observed emanating equally in all directions of unconstrained space of a base reality, then would you still doubt the existence of our simulator ( a.k.a. -God) ?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well I've tried, but you're on ignore, as this is one non sequitur straw man too many for me, sorry.

Then refresh my memory. Just do it short. What is the solution to the assumptions behind naturalism?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes you do, as you seem not to understand that this makes your claim irrational..

It is you who are being irrational, imo, by claiming that it makes sense that everything we see is just one big coincidence.

I don't believe there is an overarching purpose to the evolution of one species of evolved great apes, that evolved just 200k years ago, in a universe that's existed for billions of years, and obviously because there is no objective evidence for this claim. What is irrational about that?

Like I said, you claim it's just one big coincidence that mankind evolved as they have.
I don't see ANY species being a coincidence. I see that there is a reason behind everything.
There is a reason why things have evolved the way they have.
I see that there is a reason for everything, and that includes apparently random processes.

I also see that there is a reason why some people will not even consider the possibility of the existence of G-d.
They have an agenda, and while they insist that there is no proof and believers are all guilty of fallacies, they just hide behind these arguments because it suits them.

 

[Sheldon]

It is you who are being irrational, imo, by claiming that it makes sense that everything we see is just one big coincidence.

1. Logic is not based on opinion.
2. I have never claimed everything is based on one big coincidence, so that's yet another straw man fallacy = irrational.

Like I said, you claim it's just one big coincidence that mankind evolved as they have.

Nope.

I don't see ANY species being a coincidence. I see that there is a reason behind everything.

bare subjective assertion #1

There is a reason why things have evolved the way they have.

Bare subjective assertion #2

I see that there is a reason for everything, and that includes apparently random processes.

Bare subjective assertion #3

I also see that there is a reason why some people will not even consider the possibility of the existence of G-d.

What has that to do with me?

They have an agenda,

Bare subjective assertion #4

and while they insist that there is no proof and believers are all guilty of fallacies, they just hide behind these arguments because it suits them.

Bare subjective assertion #5 and you have used known logical fallacies relentlessly since I've been here, so I doubt the accuracy of your claim.

Now what objective evidence can you demonstrate for your assertion, that a deity can exist in an alternate time frame?

 

[Suave]

1. Logic is not based on opinion.

Now what objective evidence can you demonstrate for your assertion, that a deity can exist in an alternate time frame?

Cosmic rays observed travelling predominately along the axes of the lattice of our simulated universe/Matrix in contrast to being observed emanating equally in all directions of unconstrained space; this implies the existence of a simulator ( a.k.a. -God)

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
[Submitted on 4 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2012 (this version, v2)]
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

 

[muhammad_isa]

what objective evidence can you demonstrate for your assertion, that a deity can exist in an alternate time frame?

There is no point in explaining it to you yet again, because you just ignore it and childishly accuse me of fallacies, rather than discuss the issues in question.

 

[Sheldon]

There is no point in explaining it to you yet again, because you just ignore it and childishly accuse me of fallacies, rather than discuss the issues in question.

More insults, and ad hominem, and I didn't create known logical fallacies, or the principles of logic, and if you really think pointing them out is childish, then that rather speaks volumes about your claims to be rational. If you have any evidence beyond your bare claims and argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, you'd certainly have demonstrated it by now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It will become evident as long as I keep posting.



I have never looked at it that way. I've always believed in G-d, as in there must be something responsible for all I see.
I was raised a s a Christian, and then discovered Islam, and learnt more details about the G-d of Abraham, and every thing fell into place. I can't imagine now to NOT believe.

Naturally, my faith is tested, and when I am low, I get all sorts of doubts etc. .. but so far, they have quickly disappeared, as I realise that those thoughts are .. well ..
.. a "load of rubbish"

Well, maybe you should look at it that way and think about it a little bit.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no point in explaining it to you yet again, because you just ignore it and childishly accuse me of fallacies, rather than discuss the issues in question.

It's not childish to point out errors in thinking on a debate forum. That's what goes on here.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's not childish to point out errors in thinking..

No it isn't.
..but if in every thread, a person just replies with this fallacy, that fallacy, another fallacy, rather than discussing the OP, it becomes childish, imo.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it isn't.
..but if in every thread, a person just replies with this fallacy, that fallacy, another fallacy, rather than discussing the OP, it becomes childish, imo.

I would suggest making better arguments that aren't fallacious.

I mean, if you're going to claim to be rational, you should act like it. Don'tcha think?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No it isn't.
..but if in every thread, a person just replies with this fallacy, that fallacy, another fallacy, rather than discussing the OP, it becomes childish, imo.

It's certainly more educational to explain why a particular fallacy that someone is committed is a mistake in reasoning.

However:

• Nobody's entitled to a particular standard of reply - or even a reply at all.
• In some situations (e.g. dealing with a theist who's taken off on a Gish Gallop), a quick, dismissive reply is entirely appropriate.

 

[Sheldon]

SkepticThinker said: ↑
It's not childish to point out errors in thinking..

No it isn't.
..but if in every thread, a person just replies with this fallacy, that fallacy, another fallacy, rather than discussing the OP, it becomes childish, imo.

So which is it? If you keep posting logical fallacies, then do you really expect people not to point them out? Is there a limit to how many fallacies one can point out then, what happens then, your irrational claims get a free pass after that?

What's childish is to insult someone, when you are the one making irrational claims, and all they did was point it out.

 

[Sheldon]

I would suggest making better arguments that aren't fallacious.

I mean, if you're going to claim to be rational, you should act like it. Don'tcha think?

Well yes, but you have to admit it was far easier for him to just insult me, rather than learn how to make more rational arguments.

 

[Tiberius]

What if cosmic rays are observed travelling predominately along the axes of the lattice of our simulated universe/Matrix in contrast to being observed emanating equally in all directions of unconstrained space of a base reality, then would you still doubt the existence of our simulator ( a.k.a. -God) ?

If you could do two things.

First, you would have to show that this phenomenon would indeed count as evidence for a simulated universe.

Secondly, you'd have to show that this phenomenon is actually taking place.

 

[Suave]

If you could do two things.

First, you would have to show that this phenomenon would indeed count as evidence for a simulated universe.

Secondly, you'd have to show that this phenomenon is actually taking place.

First, this phenomenon would be an indication of a simulated universe, not proof of a simulated universe, as there could be other explanations for why cosmic rays appear to emanate from a Matrix like grid. Please let us consider the possibility base reality is naturally structured in such a way as we would expect a simulated universe to be structured.

Second, the technology is not in place yet to observe as well as accurately determine the directions from where cosmic rays are emanating.

 

[Tiberius]

First, this phenomenon would be an indication of a simulated universe, not proof of a simulated universe, as there could be other explanations for why cosmic rays appear to emanate from a Matrix like grid. Please let us consider the possibility base reality is naturally structured in such a way as we would expect a simulated universe to be structured.

Second, the technology is not in place yet to observe as well as accurately determine the directions from where cosmic rays are emanating.

So, since you can't even show that it's happening, there is, at present, no reason to believe we are in a simulated universe, is that right?

 

[Suave]

So, since you can't even show that it's happening, there is, at present, no reason to believe we are in a simulated universe, is that right?

There are five indications of us living in a simulation:

1. Crude simulations and virtual realities have already been simulated by computers .

A study conducted by Henry Markram and his team at the Blue Brain project have successfully simulated elements of a rat’s neocortical column, a complex layer of brain tissue common to all mammalian species. " Henry Markram at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne and his team built their model based on experimental measurements of rat brain slices. The simulation represents roughly 37 million synapses, or neuronal connections, in the brain region that receives sensory information from the whiskers and other parts of the body. Using the model, the team simulated rat whisker movement and saw similar neuronal responses to those observed in rat experiments."

Computer model of rat-brain part - Nature.

I realize a computer simulation of a rat's neocortical column is nowhere near the complexity of a computer simulation of an entire living human brain, but this does demonstrate at least a bit of progress so far being made towards an entire human brain's consciousness being simulated by a computer.

Perhaps when scientists have figured out how to read the actual results of a consciousness simulation, then the simulation hypothesis will become a widely accepted theory.

2. Wave-function collapse - Matter exists as a probability wave that collapses to a particle upon observation. Wave-function collapse would be expected in a simulated reality, because computational resources would be conserved by only simulating observed matter.

3. Matrix glitches - Paranormal phenomenon might happen in a simulation where the rules governing the simulation are disrupted or changed

4 Compromises in simulation algorithms - The human mind and the internet use very similar algorithms or methods to manage the flow of information., these methods often take short cuts to conserve energy or conserve computational resources, this might be expected in a computer simulation.

Study: Internet, Human Brain Use Similar Algorithms to Process Info

5. Computer code found in string theory.