EUbrainwashing Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Logically all things flow from an infinite natural source (even one outside of the bounds of time and science as we vaguely understand it to be) this source must be consistent in producing a variety of causes and those causes produce consistent effects.Nothing can be 'supernatural' for, if it exists, it must be natural albeit outside of our ability to conceptualise - including an omnipotent all seeing, perpetual, multi-faceted mechanism of creation (knock yourself out and call that prospect God if it makes you happy) that has a rational far beyond our comprehension and of which we have no absolutely evidence for! That sounds like a rational form of atheism to me.
fridolutin Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Even with rational explanations skeptics will find arguments to argue, its in their nature to do so. I'm with you saying it is natural, call it god or a force its still greater than us.
EUbrainwashing Posted March 13, 2014 Author Posted March 13, 2014 its still greater than us.Clearly the natural source from which all things flow is 'greater' than us - rather by definition. But greater in what sense?A large brick wall is 'greater' than me, so is a speeding truck. Greater in terms of mass and potential energy. But that does not make a wall or a truck more important; they cannot think. The sun is 'greater' than all humanity and our home earth a squillion times over, but it too apparently cannot 'think'.There is no evidence the natural source from which all things flow is a thing that can think. And if it does not think it is not greater than humanity.
lee1138 Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 Could you tell me what this "infinite natural source" is that you are referring to? Even as vast and incomprehensible the universe itself is to us, it is not infinite.
EUbrainwashing Posted March 16, 2014 Author Posted March 16, 2014 Could you tell me what this "infinite natural source" is that you are referring to? Even as vast and incomprehensible the universe itself is to us, it is not infinite.Since this 'infinite natural source' clearly operates outside of the bounds of time and science as we vaguely understand it to be I regret that I am not going to be able to meaningfully define it (but I'll let everyone know as soon as I can).I presume that the natural source of everything we can detect and imagine is infinite simply because I am not necessarily referring just to the universe as we know it, but rather the 'natural source' from which the universe came to be (if it has not just existed in one form or another infinatly itself).In other words: I am saying the source which caused the universe to come to be (and perhaps even time and space) will be a natural source of some sort and if that source was itself created in some way then something must have existed to create that, ad infinitum.
lee1138 Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 So, you're saying the theoretical constructs of math are the infinite source? Basically, something made up because the numbers line up in a certain way is what is the infinite source? I think you are grasping. There's nothing infinite in this universe and everything that is not in this universe is a mathematical construct of imagination.
EUbrainwashing Posted March 18, 2014 Author Posted March 18, 2014 A. So, you're saying the theoretical constructs of math are the infinite source?B. There's nothing infinite in this universe and everything that is not in this universe is a.........A. Where am I saying that?B. Where am I talking just about this universe?If this universe is not infinite what came before it caused it and will likely occur after it.
lee1138 Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Yah, he's lost me as well. He claims a belief in some force outside this universe, but fails to realize that any speculation of anything outside the universe is, in fact, merely mathematical speculation.
EUbrainwashing Posted March 18, 2014 Author Posted March 18, 2014 I do not have a clue as to what you are claiming.Then why are you responding? .... any speculation of anything outside the universe is, in fact, merely mathematical speculation.Can you justify that assertion?(And my statement is not a belief but a logical deduction which I am happy to change if shown reason or evidence to the contrary).First Direct Evidence of Cosmic Inflationhttp://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-05
Pepin Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Then why are you responding? Because I have an interest in philosophical matters and to inform you that your communication of the argument is unclear. This isn't really a bad thing, as conveying philosophical issues to another is extremely difficult. As so many great thinkers have found, the idea might make complete sense in your own mind, but it will never make sense to others unless it is clearly communicated. Even really basic ideas can be a challenge to get across. Worse, poor communication and phrasing leads to disastrous misinterpretations. The vast majority of debates are centered around two people thinking they are talking about the same idea, when they aren't. As anyone can attest, this is incredibly frustrated and beyond unproductive. I've had intricate hour long debates with people only to find out that we had no real disagreement to begin. Often times when I try to explain a complex concept to others, I might present it in a way that doesn't make sense to them. They want to understand my argument, and since they are quite certain they don't, they tell me that they don't know what I am saying. I take responsibility for this and attempt to find a way to present the idea in a way that can be understood. I would far prefer someone to tell me that I am not making sense to them, than for them to respond as I made complete sense to them. If I find that the person has concern or questions that don't really make sense with the argument I am making, then I realize that I failed somewhere in my communication and try to find where. I hope this is helpful, as I am trying to be helpful. This is an issue that all thinkers deal with.
EUbrainwashing Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 ................... your communication of the argument is unclear.[/size]That all sounds nice and dandy for which I thank you since your comment that you did not have a 'clue' what I was writing about was false and erroneous.Clearly you did have a clue since I was writing under the atheism section and some of the words used must have made sense to you even if the order they were in did not. You did not give me anything of value to respond to.To say you 'do not have a clue' is only insulting my ability to communicate, warrented or not, and is not starting a conversation it is starting an argument. There is enough of that negative crap to be found on the internet without dealing with it here.Try this:Everything we understand is seen to operate in a predictable rational manner: is natural.Everything we do not understand will also be found to be natural.Everything must have either a point of origin or be infinite.Everything that is not infinite must originate through a natural process, a natural system.This natural system, from which everything originates, must be infinite.'Everything' includes the present universe, whatever caused it and everything that came before it.
lee1138 Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Why do I have to 'justify' my statement of the obvious. Just because some theoretical maths work out a certain way doesn't make it true... or provable. Unless... unless you have been to one of these other universes, in which case, shouldn't you be the one justifying your assertions?
greekredemption Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 'Everything' includes the present universe, whatever caused it and everything that came before it. (emphasis mine) As time is a property of the universe, this is nonsensical.
EUbrainwashing Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 (emphasis mine) As time is a property of the universe, this is nonsensical.I could reword that statement to: 'Everything' includes the present universe and whatever caused it' - since I can see 'everything that came before it' infers a presumption for a continuation or sequence of things and an elapsing of present universe type time, as we vaguely understand it, taking place before the present universe came to be.What came before this universe could be apparently nothing and this universe itself be comprised of nothing too (which means: this universe is, in terms of net-sum, not so different to the nothing that existed before and caused it - just a different state of nothing).Since the 'everything' that came before the present universe could simply be 'nothing' and that 'everynothing' then comprised the natural source from which all things (or nothings) have flowed.I do not know what came before this universe (unlike may apparently behave as though they do) so my 'everything' has to be rather non-specific to encompass all possibilities including a non-state of nothing.
EUbrainwashing Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 Why do I have to 'justify' my statement of the obvious. Just because some theoretical maths work out a certain way doesn't make it true... or provable. Unless... unless you have been to one of these other universes, in which case, shouldn't you be the one justifying your assertions?Because all your posts to this are just wittering on about 'theoretical maths' which I have never mentioned. Where am I talking about maths? I do not know what you are getting at so it is YOUR JOB to explain.You state 'There's nothing infinite in this universe' - do we defiantly know that the universe is not of infinite size? Can you verify that point for me please?
Recommended Posts