Bunyip
pro scapegoat
You make it far too easy, you have said that metaphysical intuitions are axioms and the proof is right here in this thread. You discredit yourself.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.
- Thread starter Serenity7855
- Start date
You make it far too easy, you have said that metaphysical intuitions are axioms and the proof is right here in this thread. You discredit yourself.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Would you like for me to post all the post numbers where I have said that the metaphical leads to the axiom. If my post gave you, or anybody else that impression then I retract it on the ground that you have been unable to comprehend what I have said and have clung onto a possible error in your attempt to discredit me and not the argument - ad hominem.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
You used the word intuition, not I. I have a right to discredit myself, you do not. It is a underhanded method of debate and frowned upon by any serious debater.
Last edited:
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
There you go again. Using the word "us" to make you feel like you belong to something. You are the only poster here who tries to talk the talk but embarrassingly just can't.
outhouse
Atheistically
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
By that logic you are discrediting Feynman, Brian Cox and Stephen Hawkins. We are all messengers here. They create the message.
outhouse
Atheistically
Nope
You pervert their message out of context out of sheer desperation .
Stop it.
Some people don't have a shred of credibility and you insult the word messenger by your use.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
False.
In your post no. 273 you quote WL Craig and go on to explain that the first premis of the Kalam is a METAPHYSICAL INTUITION.
I pointed out to you that metaphysical intuitions are just guesses and not axioms and so in post no. 290 you say outright that they are axioms.
I can go on and cite the post no.s where you deny referring to the first premis as a Metaphysical intuition, pretend that I introduced the idea and so on if you please.
In post no. 301 you state that metaphysics itself is an axiom to defend the first premis from thw point that it is just a metaphysical intuition.
And again in post no. 739 you claim that metaphysical intuitions are axioms.
Last edited:
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
No, I do not go onto explain anything. The entire post was a quote from William Lane Craig's book.
No, I said "Metaphysical intuition is a little bit more then a hunch. It is philosophising on the expected, the norm. An axiom" that is, like evolution is a norm, an axiom.
Well, it is not if I please, is it? You gave me an option of you posting my post or retracting it. Just in case I had mistakenly said something that I didn't mean, and because it is a triviality in semantics, I selected to retract it, yet you have proceeded to search the thread for the post you thought that I had erred in anyway. I would say that to denigrate me was your intention. But be my guest. The big bang was still either caused or sprang into existence. Your agenda to duplicitously disparage me instead of my argument is more then obvious.
What I said was:
Yes, this is an error on my part, in as much as I should have said that metaphysics leads to an axiom, however, by reading the rest of my post, shown below, it is obvious that that was what I meant. That you picked up on such a triviality says more about you and your intentions then you were trying to say about me.
No, what I said was, and I quote. "As with evolution the metaphysical becomes an axiom" that substantiates my previous claim that I meant that an axiom comes after metaphysics.
And just to confirm it further, in post 779 I said ". A metaphysical happening has resulted in a axiom.."
All this time wasted, all those innuendos that you have posted to wind me up, the hostility you have evoked when we could have been discussing the argument instead of the triviality of the definitions of words. If that doesn't demonstrate the motives of a militant atheist, then I do not know what does. Pathetic.
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Exactly, and that is what I accused you of and you keep denying, you prove me right. As you say - you did indeed argue that metaphysical intuitions are axioms.
The BB can not have been caused - cause is a temporal phenomenon.
Metaphysics does not lead to an axiom any more than intuitions do, you are trying to excuse yourself by making an equally erroneous claim.
No, it does not. Science most certainly does NOT say that the 'axiom of the BB originated from a metaphysical event.
Science does not deal in metaphysics, nor does it pretend or claim that the BB is an axiom.
They are not synonymous - in fact that is exactly the claim you are denying having made.
I and several others here are trying to discuss the argument, you refuse to engage honestly and resort to endless name calling and evasions instead. Were you willing to engage honestly this thread would have been over in three or four posts.
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Serenity
So now you have made it clear that you do not see metaphysical intuitions as axioms, I take it you concede that the Kalam has now been utterly refuted?
The first premis, you now acknowledge is just an intuition - not an axiom. Therefore the Kalam is invalid - because it uses as its first premis something that is just a guess.
In order for a logical argument to be valid it must be impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false - so the version of the Kalam you employ is invalid.
In order to be sound the premises must be true - so the version of the Kalam you use is neither sound nor valid.
So now you have made it clear that you do not see metaphysical intuitions as axioms, I take it you concede that the Kalam has now been utterly refuted?
The first premis, you now acknowledge is just an intuition - not an axiom. Therefore the Kalam is invalid - because it uses as its first premis something that is just a guess.
In order for a logical argument to be valid it must be impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false - so the version of the Kalam you employ is invalid.
In order to be sound the premises must be true - so the version of the Kalam you use is neither sound nor valid.
Last edited:
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Hmmm, I prove you right? Are you concerned about being proven wrong then?
I denied it because it was a false accusation.
No, in reality I did not. It was a grammatical error that you sniffed out and used against me rather then debate the topic of the thread.
You are being silly.
cause
1.
. . a. The producer of an effect, result, or consequence.
. . b. The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result.
The cause could have taken place simultaneously with the BB, at t=0. But we have done all that. Even if it was not caused it can still be attributed to a God.
Metaphysics
- cosmology - the metaphysical study of the origin and nature of the universe
- a branch of philosophy concerned with being, first principles, and often including aspects of cosmology and epistemology.
- abstract or subtle discussion or reasoning
- Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
- concerned primarily with theories or hypotheses rather than practical considerations; "theoretical science"
Intuition - a hunch or a guess.
In my opinion it does. A metaphysical intuition is no more than a guess, therefore, it is the starting block for all scientific phenomenon. But let's not be to picky with words. We all understand what is being said even if you do not like how it is being said, chill out man.
I do.
Synonymous
2. (foll by: with) closely associated (with) or suggestive (of): his name was synonymous with greed. Or the guess/hunch was synonymous with the axiom
Yes, I think that I can use that word in this context. You might not like it but I am not here to Please you.
You think, even with your pernickety and fastidious punctiliousness
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I never did see it that way. It was a grammatical error.
I concede to no such thing, why would I? What has drawn you to that conclusion?
That is the way that the scientific method works. You begin with a guess, using common sense, of course. Add to that all of the corroborating evidence and you end up with a theory. The BB theory, in this case.
What?
What?
Watch WLC demolishing Sean Carroll's idea of an eternal universe and how Graig effortlessly demonstrates that the universe had a transient cause, and beginning in space and time. It is WLC who has brought God into the science arena.
" God and Cosmology" William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll - 2014 Greer Heard Forum - YouTube
Last edited:
For someone claiming to know the Bible inside out, it seems you haven't read Matthew 5, chapter 27 onward.
27 You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery.[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Does it say Hell or doesn't it?
Why would the Creator Of The Universe be culture specific in the book that he wrote for the entire man kind? Why does God only speak to people in the Middle East of the Bronze and Iron Ages? It doesn't make much sense.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
What's with the attitude. My interpretation of those verse is that there are two principles there. One concerning the sin of adultery (27-28) and the other is the sins of the flesh.(29-30) It is the sins of the flesh that result in time spent in hell. You have made two principles into one, in my interpretation and opinion.
Are you suggesting that I have lied about my knowledge of the scripture, as if you are, you are attacking me personally and not the knowledge I am putting forward to be critiqued. To say that you believe I am wrong is fine, but to insinuate that I am a liar is argumentative. I recognise that it is expected behaviour, but if you want to learn something, as opposed to just get off on bullying, you will need to cut the bad attitude.
outhouse
Atheistically
Your a teacher now :redcard:
My intention was not ad hominem, but you were using arguments from authority, with yourself being the authority, and it is this assertion I'm contesting.
And I wrote:
To this you answered:
I do not think you lied about your knowledge of scripture, which makes it even more suspicious that you chose to claim that "the eye plucking bit does not say you will go to hell". Yes it does say so, and your claim is simply false.
So either you do not know the Bible (or more correctly the Sermon on the Mount which is one of the best-known bits of the Bible) as well as you think you do, or you must have known that it does indeed say that your body will go to hell. And you did quote from the correct part of the Bible, indicating that your knowledge of scripture is not at fault, but you chose to quote Matthew 5 chapters 27 and 28 but not 29, in your attempt to claim that Jesus didn't say that your body would go to hell if you didn't pluck out your eye after committing thought crime.
Last edited:
Quadrivium
Member
You need to be asking "How is information possible? How is expression and interpretation of information possible." The answer to these questions illuminate the truth of what and how everything actually is.
The truth actually is known, describable, and provable, but requires understanding some things that are not easy to grasp for everyone.
First it helps to understand a fundamental limit of reality. Exact duplication of information is an impossibility, everything is variation otherwise there's no coherence to distinguish definable identity. If an essence were to be an exact duplicate of itself it would just be the original essence leaving no difference for variation, hence no relative change and no synthesis of information.
Next we quickly define "nothing", (which it's okay to not "believe" in) we understand any true origin of something must be understood as being of beyond the horizon of being something, hence the term nothing. Nothing agreeably isn't anything at all, though that's an understatement, to maintain this identity of having no identity is still to maintain an identity. This is a recursive self-reference paradox.
Remember those things, and now we move to the good stuff...
Trifold synthesis is the foundation for what makes interpreting and expressing information possible.
A good analogy to understand this (and appropriate for this topic) is the religious trinities. In Christianity god is constructed of three elements but not divisible by them. The father, the son, the holy ghost. These are all 3 very separate things, but together god is expressed. In Hinduism this same concept is described as Trimurati. Here we have Brahma being constructed of Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu, but all are Brahma. These gods are personifications of creation, destruction, and maintenance. So this 'bits of three to make one' concept is the main point of this analogy. Means nothing right now, I'm just trying to begin the illustration.
The second analogy which is more immediately related is injective function. It's a logical concept that describes a way to preserve identity. It requires 3 elements, (x) = x ≠ y. Or this can be described in words, we say a functions' domain can never be mapped to it's codomain. There's 3 elements required here (1. function, 2. functions' domain, 3. functions' codomain) To preserve identity of functioning or coherent information there must be something comparably unique to allow for any identification to be possible.
So in the hypothetical case you are left with nothingness, have no fear because it's impossible. This paradox of nothingness actually manifests a trifold synthesis of information. Inflation then occurs from the recursive inverse deduction of an absolute identity (specifically absolute nothingness). And we can prove that nothingness is real.
Since you are an occurrence, a set of information, an existence of some sort, absolute absence is irrational as there's at least been you to compare to. However since there's always at least the essence of your occurrence to compare to, an absolute absence of absolute absence is actually rational, and not just a linguistic mishap, rather an intensional paradox of nature.
This is how you get everything from nothing. To understand beyond that, to visualize the evolution of space, and eventually our cognitive minds from this intangible information you have to study quaternions and monads, and read up on Kant, Dirac, Schrodinger, Hamilton, Hofstadter, Hegel. You need to understand the principles behind holography and the wave structure of matter. Then with all that understanding just look at the world, the cosmos, the microcosmos, the nature, and you'll see the true origin of fractally recursive self-reference resonant in all things even in our behaviors and cultures, etc...
Only a handful of people probably grasp this, and even the ones that know this don't quite know they know. Its hard to accept nothing is actual when it actually isn't. It's difficult to think backwards and invertedly about the same thing. It sounds insane to some because it's like redundant nonsense, nonetheless its why you get infinity when you divide by zero. Its why we have any self-reference paradox or any measurement problem.
If you want to read a recent philosophical paper that does a fantastic job of describing the quantum computing aspect of monads in relation to a theory of everything, look up Darius Malys. Or if you want a mathematical point of view from wave structure theorists about quaternions look up Geoff Hasslhurst or Milo Wolff. Or for cool wave physics graphics look up Gabriel LaFreniere. If you want me to explain more or something, ask
Here's some clarifications that might help answer some immediate questioning.
absolute absence is irrational yes. this is a paradox in its own and that is why it is irrational. its difficult to grasp I know, but an absolute absence of absolute absence is whats provable, by the fact that anything exists at all. It doesn't matter if you think you existed before or not, just the fact that you have ever existed negates absolute absence. We're speaking of absolutes not just conceptual absence during a single moment but of all moments.
yes man made math, but math also made man. Likewise the universe made man, and the universe made math, and man made the universe. This is all literal. The problem is you're thinking of things as being separate, but they are interconnected as only one system of the totality of everything, which also isn't actually anything on the surface. All the essences are inside this nothingness (or unattainable absoluteness).
See man made math, from observing consistencies in nature (the universe)
Math also made man, see most immediately you were conceived through human reproduction. This is a very complex mechanism involving molecular chemistry which is driven by quantum mechanics, which is driven by the very mathematical logic of monads and quaternions I refer to. Of course this doesn't clearly describe anything in detail because there's so much involved in all of these fields but you get the point. Maybe the biggest concern is how does the mind arise in man to be able to create the math? Well it's all more of the same recursive self-referencing that is the logic behind preserving identity to begin with, only filtered through countless systems of the same fundamental concept of trifold synthesis.
likewise man made the universe. Only self-aware entities will be self-aware. coherence of self or world is only available for the self-aware and coherent. This is why everything seems so perfect for life. The planets in the right place the temperatures right, all the right things happened just perfectly, any different and we wouldn't be here. Exactly, that's why we are here. We would only be where we could be.
and yes in the real world if you divide by zero you have what you started with, which is everything (potential infinity). Your mind develops categories, but they are subjective to only your mind. Categories are analogous to categories of other minds. This is the same for all things. The most fundamental form of this being all monads in relation to all monads. In your mind you can perceive dividing something you can experience the interpretation of it splitting into multiple unique new pieces derived from its former whole self. But in reality its just a bunch of waves splashing around, waves of space driven by quaternions. You could never divide something into a smallest piece (or number) because there's also not actually anything there, it (space) is just in our minds. I know that last part probably sounds the most insane. but that's the complexity of the world, and the truth is the truth, though it may take time to wrap any large populations heads around understanding.
