How can you say in one sentence that no one can have 100% certain knowledge, and in the same breath talk about metaphysical proof and logical impossibility as if that determines something with 100% certainty?

Here is what you should have written to avoid internal contradiction:

"I should have said that I believe it is logically impossible for us to exist if there is an infinite past without an external will existing."

"I believe Our universe is not characterized by random things popping in and out of existence uncaused."

"As such, it's possible I could have misinterpreted the evidence for the resurrection and thereby wrong about the identity of the God that maybe exists."

This I agree with 100%, what you wrote I can't, because as you see, you consciously or unconsciously make the sentences more categorical then I can accept for the discussion we are having. You beg the question so to speak, even if I believe you are not trying to be disrespectful.

And by the way - this is where I see you start going wrong - this premise is flawed:
The mathemathics is precise, but also probabilistic. I assume you interpret quantum mechanics according to some hidden variables model (deterministic). I believe it represents true randomness. This is a matter of belief, and a metaphysical unprovable question at this time.


You also just got up? :)

never said he didn't - but he at least attempted to - hence my questioning of what about it actually disproves Craig?
My question was 'Why do they say there can be an infinite regression of causes' given our universe?' It doesn't mean that every solution must disprove another - but if you're arguing that Craig is wrong, how can you ignore the part of his argument that deals directly with why multiverse doesn't solve the problem? (It's not in the quote on the article - it's in the video though). yes, but where'd they get the chocolate? If they created that too, and then possess all the necessary qualities to create a universe, then it's merely semantics to call them pixies rather than God. This is the part I'm missing (and possibly misunderstanding): If there's an infinite chain of universes with no beginning and no end -> how does the entropic decay of our universe come into it? Or does each universe (in the theory) have a mid-point of causing another universe and then die off?
And are you arguing that it's circular (our universe will eventually be reborn from this chain)? If so, does the universe's entropic decay result in its ceasing to exist or will we continue to have an infinite number of identical universes along with an infinite number of infinitely diverse universes in the multiverse?

Edit:
So we look at the book of mormon - look at its internal consistency and compare its historicity. Simply dismissing it because 'it's ridiculous BS' isn't enough. But the lack of, for example, historical evidence for the events in the book and the places mentioned, brings it into doubt. In contrast, events and places in the Bible are backed up by historical evidence. The part that scholars disagree on is the supernatural and the existence of God - which doesn't get us anywhere.

Edit again (rather than bump it with a new post):
Like any metaphor - it breaks if you stretch it too far. The hardware has a fixed state, the brain can change - ok, now we've got that out of the way -> if something is trying to operate through broken wiring, it might not function correctly.
It's not a great comparison, I grant you. The speculation was about why it's not a logical impossibility nor 'obvious BS' as you put it for us to have a soul.
As for your Q: So which personality goes into this second life of the soul? -> answer: whichever is the true one. If the damage to the brain results in the inner soul being unable to express itself, then it's not a tricky question. If the bump on the head turns you from an AC/DC fan to an ABBA fan...well, I'm sorry to hear that but perhaps that's not a fundamental 'who am I' question.
Or to put it another way:
"Personality is ego based, not soul based. However, aspects of our true self can shine through and affect the personality--but not the other way around. "
I hate to reference YahooAnswers (LOL) but the first couple of answers here make do:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100120095325AAhgpYD

In a book by John Connolly, a characters says "You can't prove that something doesn't exist, you can only prove that something does exist."

And then a footnote expands: "That's not entirely true. It may well be the case that one cannot prove the existence of a nine-eyed multi-tentacled pink monster named Herbert, but that does not mean that, somewhere in the universe, there is not a nine-eyed multi-tentacled pink monster named Herbert wondering why nobody writes to him. Just because he hasn't been seen doesn't mean that he isn't out there. This is known as an inductive argument. But the argument is probable, not definite. If there's actually a pretty good chance he exists, there's at least as good a chance that he doesn't exist. So you can prove a negative, at least as much as you can prove anything at all."

Anyway, I'm curious about the whole quantum stuff, and those who use it to say "there is a probability that all possible events, no matter how strange, may occur" - but then the concept of God always seems to be left out. "Anything is possible - but there is no God." ??

First up - liked the quote ;)

Second - this is another thing brought up by WLC - given a multiverse or not, there are multiple *possible* worlds with either one (this one) or many existing. Some things, like unicorns (and we'll take the non-magical horse-with-horn variety) are possible but don't exist in this world (though would exist in one or more (actually, an infinite number) of an infinite number of possible worlds). Some things, would exist in all worlds (like numbers or other abstract ideas). God, by His nature, would exist in all possible worlds. So, if it's possible for God to exist then He does exist in all possible worlds, therefore He exists in this one.

Though in fairness to the quantum stuff, they may just be talking about all events possible under the laws of physics of this universe (otherwise we'd have unicorns spontaneously popping into existence due to the collision of particles or something)(though that may have already happened for Herbert, who may even now have a unicorn pal)

That's actually kind of clever. Of course, it's a hypothesis based on a hypothesis, and I'm not even sure it would stand against most of multiverse hyphotesies anyway as I can't really be arsed to do the research.

Incidentally, there are a bunch of Enterprises on my TV which have encountered quantum anomaly.

8)
They should try reversing the polarity - that usually works.

---

Unrelated Sample conversation:

Quantum physicist: "Look, right there, there's another one - see, we can get something from nothing"
Skeptic: "Er, dude, that's not actually nothing, It's a quantum vacuum, clearly containing something which fluctuates to produce the particle"
QP: "Oh yeah? Well, maybe that's what nothing really is, and what we thought was nothing isn't real"
S: "Are you saying that I don't know what nothing is?"
QP: "That's right."
S: "And I suppose you know 'nothing'"
QP: "Yeah, I know nothing!"

(sorry, just thought of that in the shower and it sounded funny in my head)

Because that is the nature of infinity. It goes onward infinitely in all directions, forward and backward. There is no first or last, there is just your point of view somewhere in the chain. Outside of the chain yes, but there again you can have an infinite chain of whatever caused the first chain.And so on.
Of course it does not disprove a different idea of whats outside the universe, but it tells you that Crag Hacks idea is not how it necessarily must be, because Aquinas said there must be a first mover.

Because it just sets the issue one step back in a possible infinite amount of steps. What is outside the multiverse, and so on. And no, there is no need for gods anywhere in tha chain, nor is there any reason to conjure up such a "being".

Yes it is, and just as impossible to be true. Calling them pixies with magic chocolate does help the religious folk (and Agnostics) understand why it is impossible, not just unlikely,though.

Could be, no way to know currently.

Maybe, our brains can't grasp infinity properly.

uhh what? the flood, talking snakes, do I need to go on?

I think there is a internet word for what you just did, concluding what the soul is by what the soul really is. The first answer there does the same thing. It says personality is a result of the "true soul". But where does the true soul come from then? Does that mean that yours and my consciousness right now are not our true self?

Aren't gods supposed to be supernatural and without a cause? So don't think religious folk will be happy with having their gods spontaneously created by "Quantum stuff" out of random possibility.

btw...Trollum THANK YOU for arguing rationally, even if we disagree, you at least understand stuff, unlike Seyong.

Between the first cause being first chronologically versus first ontologically. If the claim was that it was first chronologically, then whether infinite regress was possible would be important, but because the claim is first ontologically, it has nothing to do with infinite regress. Regardless of what you think you know about infinite regress, it is completely irrelevant to the argument from first cause, so the fact that you keep bringing that up only continues to show that you completely misunderstand the argument. I don't know how to make that any clearer to you. *sigh*

Using the the example that was used as part of the argument itself to help explain the argument to you can't possible be a straw man argument. Conversely, making up something that you think sound good has no relevance to the argument whatsoever. So far you have not quoted Aquinas, but have only made up what you think he said or what you think would be possible for him to know. I have absolutely no idea why you think he said or thought those things, but I'm pretty sure it's simply because you've never read him and not because you lived in the mythical dark ages. The fact that you lack the mental capability to understand that argument does not mean he is assuming the conclusions are true. I'm not sure why you're ignoring the argument that's been presented. If the universe had a beginning, then it had a cause. Scienctific and philosophical arguments show the universe has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. It is not possible for a cause to be caused by the thing that it is a cause of. The cause of space and time can not be caused by space and time, so it does not owe its existence to space and time, and it must transcend space and time. Then why is there something rather than nothing? Yes, the dark ages are a myth, read a book:

http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

Of course, if an argument is based on premises that are later shown to be false, then it can become outdated, but an argument does not become outdated simply because of when it was created. It is again a logically fallacy to say that desert folk are wrong because they lived thousands of years ago. Again, I invite you to take a logic class, you might learn something. That's only how philosophy works in your fanciful imagination. Again, I invite you to take a philosophy class, you might learn something. You're the one who claimed that we know that an infinite regression is possible. I assumed that you would know how to back up your claim, otherwise you wouldn't be making it. /facepalm

Take a look at these two arguments

1.) All men are mortal.
2.) Socrates was a man.
3.) Therefore, Socrates was a mortal.

1.) All men are mortal.
2.) Socrates was a man.
3.) Therefore, pixies exist.

There first two premises show that it is logically necessarily that Socrates was a mortal and that is the only thing that they show to be necessarily true. When you swap out the conclusion in the second argument for something else, then you no longer have an argument with a valid form. Team jamotide makes just as much nonsense as the second argument. That is the conclusion from a logical argument I've given, not a definition of logic... It jives with logic by making logical arguments.

If you think luck exists, then make a logical argument for it, like the logical arguments for those other things. Meanwhile, you haven't interacted with my argument against luck. If luck existed and a large group of people were randomly flipping a coin and they wanted it to come up heads, then there would be people who approached other percentages than 50/50 in accordance with how much luck they had. While we might perceive a string of the coin coming up heads as being lucky, the fact that it evens out for everyone shows that it is nothing more than our perception. Since you aparently don't regard metaphysical proofs as proof, you're free to answer the question as well, genius. Thanks for the laugh. Honestly, you would greatly benefit from taking a logic class. And you're welcome to disagree with the dictionary about what evidence is. When you're deciding whether or not to trust someone, you don't know with 100% certainty whether they will be trustworthy, so there always exists doubt about that. If you choose to trust them based on past evidence that shows they are generally trustworthy, then you are acting in faith in spite of doubt. You do the same thing every time you have faith in someone or something else.

We can't have 100% certainty that what we have interpreted to be true is true, but we can have 100% certainty that an argument with true premises and a valid form has a true conclusion. The conclusion follows necessarily and not from interpretation. I believe and have knowledge that the premises of the argument are true, but it is possible that I could be wrong, however it if those premises are true and the form is valid, then it is not possible that those premises lead to a conclusion that is false. I believe and have knowledge of how our universe is characterized. Any example of random things popping in and our of existence uncaused would show that I am wrong, and as soon as an example was shown to me, I would be happy to admit to being wrong. I've given arguments that show that God necessarily exist. If you want to case doubt on the argument, then you need to show that it uses a false premise or an invalid form. Things are probabilistic or appear random when we don't have all of the variables and equations. We don't have anywhere near a full understanding of quantum mechanics, but I see no reason to think that once we do have all of the variables that they won't plug into mathematical equations like everything else. I think this is strongly shown by the fact quantum mechanics has no practical application to our understanding of cause and effect relationships. No one who hears a loud noise and jumps to the conclusion that it must have been uncaused. Someone who can't find their keys doesn't jump to the conclusion that they randomly popped out of existence.

I encourage you to look at some articles about the history of random number generation. For a while it was difficult to generate a truly random number. Most online casinos have moved to using atmospheric noise as part of their random number generation. However, truly random only means that it is outside of our ability to predict it, not that there isn't a logical cause for atmospheric noise.

Off course it fits, that's just it, anything fits, frolicking aliens, ghosts, spirits, reincarnation, space magic, every superstition know to man, anything you can think of, it will fit.

Which is precisely why it's so odd to see you so invested in trying to extract any meaning from that which is meaningless, to see you trying to unilaterally declare from within the biased confines of belief itself the universal acceptance of the proposition "the bible is evidence of god" simply because you can fit "bible" and "god" into a dictionary definition where you can just about fit any two words - obviously the proposition holds no validity outside the confines of a specific narrow context much like the proposition "my dad's penchant for spandex is evidence he's a super hero" holds no validity outside the narrow specific context of the child's own belief.

(www.dictionary.com)

ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns]
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: The bicorne hat on his head was visible evidence that he was Napoleon reincarnated.

If the ammount of times you had to repeat yourself on this subject to multiple people in this thread is to be any kind of evidence then, unlike the existance of god, it seems obvious that people unfeathered from the constraints and demands of your belief aren't willing to acknowledge the validity of the proposition.

Reality is the part of the imagination we all agree on. Last time i checked, inspite the bible, south park and crop circles, neither god, underpants gnomes or frolicking aliens made the cut yet. Sorry.

If i were to live a million years i wouldn't stop being amazed at how something as straightforward as longevity can color so strongly the minds of so many.

The best way to prove that something doesn't exist is to show that it has an inherent logical contradiction. The fact that something has never been seen is reason to think that it has a very low probability of existing, not that there is no probability of that. If it is true that the universe has a cause, then there might be any number of improbable explanations, but it still remains that there is a cause. So what should be believed is not based on how improbable the causes are, but one which cause is the most probable.

Some arguments, such as Intelligent Design are probability based, where they seek to show that an intelligent designer is more probable than other explanations, and thus the best explanation, but they don't actually logically prove there is one. Other arguments, such as Aquinas' Five Ways, aren't probability based and instead try to use arguments show that the conclusion is logically necessarily true. I don't understand that either.

The ontological argument can be used to "prove" the existance of anything. I didn't even consider this because it is such an outdated idea I didn't even think you take it seriously. I understand the issue fine, just not your outdated way of thinking.

Ok. no.

Maybe you should try reading instead of repeating yourself? I was always talking about what you brought up and that is Crag Hack, I merely mentioned that it is based on Aquinas outdated ideas.

So this is your logical reasoning at work?

omg do you comprehend anything I say? How often did I address this now, 8 times? I never said it doesn;t have a beginning or a cause.

You are assuming space and time had a cause. And if so, you are assuming space and time can;t be caused by a different space and time, and that again, and so on. There is NO reason to invent gods for that.

Do you realise what a stupid question that is? If there is no nothing, than that's that. Why would you ask why there is not anything else?

I read a book about propaganda methods in modern democracies, it said nothing about dark ages. But whatever, I shall henceforth call them the middle ages where they didn't knwo what we know now.

Yes, I am just calling it outdated to tell you how idiot it is to still take them seriously. I never said everything they knew was crap, just what you tell us.

Probably, not as much as you.

If you are the standard, I'll definitely learn how to argue team jamotide better to Fox News viewers.

Typical religious double standard, they have to prove nothing, but won't even look at the theory of evolution.


Yes I definitely see what you mean.

Nice try, but I won;t argue for luck, why would I, it is just as metaphysical as gods and fairies.

That was the answer, genius, metaphysical proofs are no proofs by definition. You might as well answer me why gods have to be supernatural.

Didn;t you say that already, like 5 minutes ago.

So did this little speech have anything to do with anything. If this is a new tactic to waste my time, you should know I have no life and all the time in the natural world.
It is amazing that you write such things and then go ahead and said there are such "beings" as gods.

Not surprising, you seem to be very resistant to explanations. Someone already said that your god is supernatural and without a cause (wait a minute wasn't that you), so how could he be caused by quantum fluctuations. See this is why YOU have problems with logic, not I.

Don't forget to also include the things you believe in that list because the people who believe those things think that they were justified in forming their beliefs, just as you think that you were justified in forming your beliefs. It all boils down to the fact that we interpret evidence differently, but if you claim that everyone who has different beliefs from you has no grounds for their beliefs, then you are left being unable to account for the formation of their beliefs. I'm simply willing to grant that just because I think someone's belief is wrong, that doesn't mean they have no grounds for that belief. It's possible for someone to read the Bible and use it to form the belief that God does not exist, so I will just as readily say that the Bible is also evidence that God does not exist. Regardless of whether any of our beliefs happen to be objectively true or false, we all need to interpret evidence in order to form them. I happen to think the evidence most strongly indicates that God exists, but I'm not so arrogant as to claim that anyone who interprets the evidence differently has no grounds for their beliefs, and that it is therefore irrational to disagree with me. Most of the responses to me have been arguments from incredulity (yay for Napoleon). They have ignored the dictionary definition and been unable to account for the formation of a belief without evidence, so I haven't been particularly bothered by the fact that they disagree with me. The problem is that there is very little that everyone agrees on and even if everyone agreed with something, that still wouldn't mean that it was true. After all, it's possible for everyone to be wrong. There are billions of Christians who agree that God exists, but that doesn't alter reality. Even if everyone on the planet converted to Christianity, that still wouldn't mean that God exists. Likewise, even if everyone on the planet deconverted, that wouldn't mean God didn't exist.

Oh the irony - I just typed up my post (it was quite long) and upon hitting 'post my message' ... my message popped out of existence /head->desk (LOL)

Don't have the time or energy to retype it. Let's just agree that it was full of convincing arguments for my position.