The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[Thief]

This proposition is only valid if one considers the universe itself to be contingent. While everything inside our universe is contingent upon something else, the universe itself must exist by necessity. Otherwise there would be no "you" to consider it's non-existence. You try to get around this by assuming the supernatural exists, but you have no evidence that such a thing exists.

"you"....try to get around this by assuming the supernatural exists...

Without the 'you' is there 'spirit'?.....no of course not.
'you' can't tell the difference between chemistry and thought?
a chemical reaction as compared to a spirit?

I'm not aiming this directly at 'you'.
just anyone who might be watching.

and there will be no evidence.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, no repeatable experiment.

'you' are the evidence of spirit...
and 'you' just have to think about it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

and there will be no evidence.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, no repeatable experiment.

'you' are the evidence of spirit...
and 'you' just have to think about it.

So the evidence of "spirit" is indistinguishable from non-evidence of spirit. Gotcha. Sort of a red flag, I'd say.

 

[Thief]

So the evidence of "spirit" is indistinguishable from non-evidence of spirit. Gotcha. Sort of a red flag, I'd say.

Go back and read it again....and when 'you' respond....
will 'you' being denying your own spirit?
or will 'you' concede that 'you' are more than your chemistry?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Go back and read it again....

Nah, it was sufficiently pointless the first time around.

and when 'you' respond....
will 'you' being denying your own spirit?
or will 'you' concede that 'you' are more than your chemistry?

I'm not denying anything; I'm saying the existence of me, or you, or anyone else, isn't really evidence for or against spirit, since physicalism- the view that there is no such thing as spirit (or anything else non-physical)- also posits that human being exists. Thus, if that is your evidence for spirit, that's a very bad sign since its the same as non-evidence of spirit.

 

[McBell]

Nah, it was sufficiently pointless the first time around.


I'm not denying anything; I'm saying the existence of me, or you, or anyone else, isn't really evidence for or against spirit, since physicalism- the view that there is no such thing as spirit (or anything else non-physical)- also posits that human being exists. Thus, if that is your evidence for spirit, that's a very bad sign since its the same as non-evidence of spirit.

One would think after being shot down time after time he would come up with a new song and dance.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

One would think after being shot down time after time he would come up with a new song and dance.

Indeed. Give him credit for persistence, if nothing else.

 

[shawn001]

Anyone but him. I had heard his name as a formidable debater but had never seen him debate. I finally downloaded a debate transcript. In the first few paragraphs he claimed 2 + 2 equals 5 and had a t-shirt stating this made, and the sum of all integers from 0 to infinite was 1/12. I blacked out and could read no further. Now if you still value my evaluation of Krauss's claims let me know and I will provide it.

You might want to know about the 2+2=5

The Straight Dope: Does 2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2?

 

[shawn001]

I think the last sentence is the key to understanding why the universe is necessary and therefore not contingent.

The week Anthropic Principle.

 

[shawn001]

Go back and read it again....and when 'you' respond....
will 'you' being denying your own spirit?
or will 'you' concede that 'you' are more than your chemistry?

What would you say is going on with this person?

[youtube]PFJPtVRlI64[/youtube]
Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist - YouTube

Are you saying chemicals have nothing to do with consciousness?

 

[Ouroboros]

had a t-shirt stating this made, and the sum of all integers from 0 to infinite was 1/12.

A Ramanujan summation. Can be found by the cesaro sum in a Grandi's series. Used in theoretical physics today if I understand my son correctly.

For instance:

Let S=1-1+1...
Then 2S = (1-1+1...)+(1-1+1...) = 1+1-1-1+1+1... = 1
So S = 1/2

And somehow this can be used to find the sum of the 1+2+3... My son explained it to me, but I got lost...

Grandi's series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +

 

[camanintx]

A Ramanujan summation. Can be found by the cesaro sum in a Grandi's series. Used in theoretical physics today if I understand my son correctly.

For instance:

Let S=1-1+1...
Then 2S = (1-1+1...)+(1-1+1...) = 1+1-1-1+1+1... = 1
So S = 1/2

And somehow this can be used to find the sum of the 1+2+3... My son explained it to me, but I got lost...

Grandi's series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +

Phil Plait at Slate took a shot at explaining this a couple of weeks ago.

Infinite series: When the sum of all positive integers is a small negative fraction.

 

[Thief]

And these present postings take away anything I have said?...I think not.

It takes spirit to speak of spirit.
I don't think I'm addressing mindless chemical reactions.

Or maybe I am addressing something less?

At some 'point' someone might step up and address the notion of creation.

I say Spirit first.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It takes spirit to speak of spirit.

Why?

I don't think I'm addressing mindless chemical reactions.

This would only be relevant if there was some relation between what you think and what is the case.

Or maybe I am addressing something less?

Yeah, insults are a surefire way to make your nonsensical arguments strike people as compelling.

 

[Thief]

Why?


This would only be relevant if there was some relation between what you think and what is the case.


Yeah, insults are a surefire way to make your nonsensical arguments strike people as compelling.

Why?...because Spirit first makes good sense.
7billion copies of a learning device...and no Cause behind the event?
I don't think so.

Man as a mystery without Cause?...not buying it.

What I think matters as much as your denial.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Why?...because Spirit first makes good sense.

Saying something "makes good sense" doesn't make it so. And its hard to see how a vague concept that, so far as the evidence goes, is indiscernible from a mere fiction (and thus has no explanatory value) "makes good sense". Besides, if we're being honest here, I think people mostly believe in spirit or souls because its reassuring, not because there's any reason to think this is true.

7billion copies of a learning device...and no Cause behind the event?
I don't think so.

Yeah, this is fallacious; nobody ever said there was "no cause" behind the existence of humans with the cognitive capabilities we have- only that this cause wasn't an occult entity.

 

[Thief]

Saying something "makes good sense" doesn't make it so. And its hard to see how a vague concept that, so far as the evidence goes, is indiscernible from a mere fiction (and thus has no explanatory value) "makes good sense". Besides, if we're being honest here, I think people mostly believe in spirit or souls because its reassuring, not because there's any reason to think this is true.


Yeah, this is fallacious; nobody ever said there was "no cause" behind the existence of humans with the cognitive capabilities we have- only that this cause wasn't an occult entity.

I see nothing in your post that affirms a lack of 'deity'.

Lack of personal experience is not a cause to say there is no Cause.

And Someone had to be First.
Not likely that Man is the first.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I see nothing in your post that affirms a lack of 'deity'.

Um. Ok.

Lack of personal experience is not a cause to say there is no Cause.

Neither is it a cause to say a bunch of mumbo jumbo about there is definitely a first cause, and it has such and such (incoherent) properties, and so on.

And Someone had to be First.

Someone? Not necessarily, depending on what you even mean by that.

Not likely that Man is the first.

First what?

 

[Thief]

Um. Ok.


Neither is it a cause to say a bunch of mumbo jumbo about there is definitely a first cause, and it has such and such (incoherent) properties, and so on.


Someone? Not necessarily, depending on what you even mean by that.


First what?

First in mind and heart.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

First in mind and heart.

So there was a first organism with a heart, and with cognitive capabilities roughly like ours? Sure. Not a very exciting or significant conclusion, however. Sort of like saying there was a first person to wear a baseball cap, or eat a hamburger.

 

[shawn001]

"Imagine that the entire history of the universe is compressed into one year - with the Big Bang corresponding to the first second of the New Year's Day, and the present time to the last second of December 31st (midnight).

Using this scale of time, each month would equal a little over a billion years. Here's a closer look at when important events would occur when we imagine the universe in one year:

Cosmic Calendar

"Within the scheme of the Cosmic Calendar, an average human life of 70-80 years is equivalent to approximately 0.16 cosmic seconds!"



In the history timeline of the earth humans haven't been around very long at all.