|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
 Posted - 02/26/2006 : 01:31:26 [Permalink]
|
Excellent post THoR.
Ufortunately, Bill suffers from Morton's Demon, so I'm afraid that not much of what you wrote will actually have an impact on his thought processes.
Oh, and welcome to Skeptic Friends Network.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/26/2006 01:32:14 |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2006 : 02:06:05 [Permalink]
|
Hi THoR. Well said, well said indeed.
Which did come first anyway; the chicken or the egg? It's a silly question isn't it, and as asked, it's answer is of little import. But we can be assured one thing: that the barbeque and the skillet came next, closely followed by beer....
Welcome to SFN!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2006 : 02:35:16 [Permalink]
|
Mab, thank you for mentioning "Morton's Demon." The term was unfamiliar to me, so I Googled it and found:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mortonsdemon.htm
G.R. Morton, a reformed YEC, wrote the article at the above link, and it's worth reading in full.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2006 : 08:14:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Well said, THoR.
And welcome to the SFN!
Unfortuantely, it is straight from the link provided. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2006 : 10:19:26 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
No, I'm not wrong.
Bill has repeatedly referred to a "first cause" and directly said that the "first cause" is god, when he refers to "cause and effect theory".
That is the cosmological argument for the existance of god.
Bill, when he refers to "cause and effect theory", is stating that his deity is not constrained by causality. Which is the cosmological argument for the existance of god.
Don't be in such a hurry to jump my shit.
The law of causality is used to form the cosmological argument, so Bill is referencing a legitimate philosophical principle even if he is using it to form a flawed argument. I agree with you that the cosmological argument is bs, but moakley was asking about cause and effect theory, which in the context of what Bill has been saying is philosophical causality. Bill hasn't been saying "Cause and effect theory means god exists." He's been saying that according to the laws of cause and effect, a god must exist.
Causality in wikipedia can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality And if you scroll down to the end, you find the cosmological argument, which endorsers say is supported by causality.
I think I've been making a similar mistake as Bill in calling it the law of causality. Wikipedia calls it a "principle". I have seen it elsewhere on the web (not only at Christian sites, btw) called a "law", but I suspect that's not proper.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by me being in a hurry to jump on your shit. Considering that I agree with you frequently on skeptic friends, I hardly think I've singled you out to jump on. Maybe you didn't mean it that way. But if you did take it personally, don't, because it wasn't meant to be so. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2006 : 12:25:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Well said, THoR.
And welcome to the SFN!
Unfortuantely, it is straight from the link provided.
Good find.
Since THoR (I assume it is short for Theory of Reciprocity) and the author of the piece from the link you provided Moakley both carry the name McNally I'm a bit curious...
THoR, your profile says Jack McNally, and the copyright holder of the website you copied says John McNally. Are you two related?
None the less, I'd like to inform you that when you copy text in this manner from elsewhere, it's inappropriate to do so without leaving a notice that the text is copied, and a link to its source. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2006 : 12:44:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Well said, THoR.
And welcome to the SFN!
Unfortuantely, it is straight from the link provided.
What was posted was the first half page on a multi-page essay on this "Theory of Reciprocity". While I haven't thoroughly read more than the first page, the following half page that was not reposted by THoR wasn't as good as I expected.
quote:
Sir Isaac Newton captured the essence of natural balance when he codified the law of physics which states every action precipitates a reciprocal event - an equal and opposite reaction. And it's not just coincidence that mathematics - the language of science - encodes logic into a device called an equation which requires its elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument. From simple addition to quantum mechanics, reciprocal balance is a prevailing dynamic which even the rules of cause and effect must obey.
One of the problems being that quantum mechanics isn't perfectly balanced. There is an asymmetry between the forces, energy, and matter. It is that asymmetry that caused matter to gain dominance over anti-matter in the early universe. While this unbalance was one in a billion, it was none the less an important one for us.
This gives me misgivings about the conclusions John P. McNally, Jr. will give us. Right now I have other more important things to read, but if I find the time, I'll have a closer look on his thesis. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2006 : 19:23:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Well said, THoR.
And welcome to the SFN!
Unfortuantely, it is straight from the link provided.
Good find.
Since THoR (I assume it is short for Theory of Reciprocity) and the author of the piece from the link you provided Moakley both carry the name McNally I'm a bit curious...
THoR, your profile says Jack McNally, and the copyright holder of the website you copied says John McNally. Are you two related?
None the less, I'd like to inform you that when you copy text in this manner from elsewhere, it's inappropriate to do so without leaving a notice that the text is copied, and a link to its source.
After reading THoR's profile and seeing that he list the same home page as the link provided. It looks like I may need to become a little more thorough. He also listed an occupation of 'genius'.
So who else is talking about The Theory of Reciprocity? It looks like there is some very different work being done by Armin Falk and Urs Fischbacher on reciprocal altruism, different responses in different environments, game theory, etc. Perhaps even an explanation of moral behavior.
edited: added last sentence |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 02/26/2006 19:26:23 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 06:17:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Well said, THoR.
And welcome to the SFN!
Unfortuantely, it is straight from the link provided.
Good find.
Since THoR (I assume it is short for Theory of Reciprocity) and the author of the piece from the link you provided Moakley both carry the name McNally I'm a bit curious...
THoR, your profile says Jack McNally, and the copyright holder of the website you copied says John McNally. Are you two related?
None the less, I'd like to inform you that when you copy text in this manner from elsewhere, it's inappropriate to do so without leaving a notice that the text is copied, and a link to its source.
Jack McNally = John McNally
John Kennedy was often called 'Jack', and yes I found your forum by backtracking traffic links to my website.
Sorry, didn't know it was appropriate to quote "myself"...will do so in the future.
Like the forum - interesting discussions.
|
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 06:31:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
After reading THoR's profile and seeing that he list the same home page as the link provided. It looks like I may need to become a little more thorough. He also listed an occupation of 'genius'.
So who else is talking about The Theory of Reciprocity? It looks like there is some very different work being done by Armin Falk and Urs Fischbacher on reciprocal altruism, different responses in different environments, game theory, etc. Perhaps even an explanation of moral behavior.
edited: added last sentence
Listed 'genius' cause I couldn't spell crumud....crumudgin....crumudgen??? Whatever - cranky old man.
I actually host about a dozen websites and THoR is a hobby site which explains a feasible rationale for the phenomenon of existence. It's funny, a lot of people criticize it (mostly those with a religious bent), but noone has ever even tried to challenge the logic behind it.
I don't claim to have credentials...other than that of BS which was aptly applied to me after college many years ago. But when the obvious is overlooked, sometines all it takes is a crumudgeon to point it out. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 02/27/2006 06:32:50 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 07:33:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
One of the problems being that quantum mechanics isn't perfectly balanced. There is an asymmetry between the forces, energy, and matter. It is that asymmetry that caused matter to gain dominance over anti-matter in the early universe. While this unbalance was one in a billion, it was none the less an important one for us.
This gives me misgivings about the conclusions John P. McNally, Jr. will give us. Right now I have other more important things to read, but if I find the time, I'll have a closer look on his thesis.
Let's see if I understand you:
Are you telling me that quantum physicists have come up with experiments in which the equations don't balance with their theories.
DERN ! ! ! I hate it when that happens. And I, too, used to tell my prof's that the problem couldn't be with me - it HAD TO BE reality that was at fault 
Of course I didn't have sufficient letters after my name to say that and make it stick...not even with the most gullible of my professors.
OR - are you telling me that QP's have dis-proven the validity of equation theory itself...by using equations.
|
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 07:55:20 [Permalink]
|
It's 'curmudgeon.' I know 'cause I have to look at one of the miserable, old bastards in the mirror every morning.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 08:07:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
It's 'curmudgeon.' I know 'cause I have to look at one of the miserable, old bastards in the mirror every morning.
Thank you. Profile updated.
THoR |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 10:57:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Ok filthy, I had a chance to read the intro and first 3 paragraphs and it did seem to be an interesting read. I don't have the time at this exact moment to be able to read it all, and then ponder on it for awhile, before discussing. But I promise you that I will read it soon and then we can discuss what we might agree on and what we might not agree on. Fair enough? Have a great Friday sir and we will talk soon.
Fair enough. Have a good weekend... 
Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein present: THE BIG BANG:
THE BIG BANG:
It sure was BIG!!
The Hubble Telescope's deepest view of the universe teaches us about the beginning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
We certainly know that our universe exists, however, this knowledge alone has not satisfied mankind's quest for further understanding. Our curiosity has led us to question our place in this universe and furthermore, the place of the universe itself. Throughout time we have asked ourselves these questions: How did our universe begin? How old is our universe? How did matter come to exist? Obviously, these are not simple questions and throughout our brief history on this planet much time and effort has been spent looking for some clue. Yet, after all this energy has been expended, much of what we know is still only speculation.
We have, however, come a long way from the mystical beginnings of the study of cosmology and the origins of the universe. Through the understandings of modern science we have been able to provide firm theories for some of the answers we once called hypotheses. True to the nature of science, a majority of these answers have only led to more intriguing and complex questions. It seems to be inherent in our search for knowledge that questions will always continue to exist.
Although in this short chapter it will be impossible to tackle all of the questions concerning the creation of everything we know as reality, an attempt will be made to address certain fundamental questions of our being. It will be important to keep in mind that all of this information is constantly being questioned and reevaluated in order to understand the universe more clearly. For our purposes, through an examination of what is known about the Big Bang itself, the age of the universe, and the synthesis of the first atoms, we believe that we can begin to answer several of these key questions.
THE BIG BANG
One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.
(bill) I would agree. The universe is not eternal.
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point.
(bill) But where did the matter, energy and space come from? Yes, many atheist will say that it was: "cast from the bowels of some spontaneous cosmic eruption" but yet they have no idea where these bowels came from, or how they act spontaneously?
What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.
(bill) Of coarse it is. It is at this point that the atheist is forced to deal with the circular logic of his worldview. They have no clue who/what could be the eternal first cause of the universe so that forces them to look at the possibility of eternal matter. This ends in fits for the apologetic atheist as most of their cohorts, including NASA, subscribe to a finite and caused universe:
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning."
"Recently, NASA has made some astounding discoveries which lend themselves to the proof of the Big Bang theory. Most importantly, astronomers using the Astro-2 observatory were able to confirm one of the requirements for the foundation of the universe through the Big Bang. "
"However, science has now told us that the universe is, in fact, finite, with a beginning, a middle, and a future. It is easy to get caught up in the large scale of the issue in discussing years by the billions, yet, this time still passes."
(bill)not only that but they just chided the creationist for giving the attributes of deity to a deity, so the creationist is certainly going to have a few question for the atheist, who then has no problem giving attributes of deity to matter.
This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.
The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxys velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubbles observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang theory.
Since the Big Bang, the universe has been continuously expanding and, thus, there has been more and more distance between clusters of galaxies. This phenomenon of galaxies moving farther away from each other is known as the red shift. As light from distant galaxies approach earth there is an increase of space between earth and the galaxy, which leads to wavelengths being stretched.
In addition to the understanding of the velocity of galaxies emanating from a single point, there is further evidence for the Big Bang. In 1964, two astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, in an attempt to detect microwaves from outer space, inadvertently discovered a noise of extraterrestrial origin. The noise did not seem to emanate from one location but instead, it came from all directions at once. It became obvious that what they heard was radiation from the farthest reaches of the universe which had been left over from the Big Bang. This discovery of the radioactive aftermath of the initial explosion lent much credence to the Big Bang theory.
Even more recently, NASAs COBE satellite was able to detect cosmic microwaves eminating from the outer reaches of the universe. These microwaves were remarkably uniform which illustrated the homogenity of the early stages of the universe. How |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 11:08:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
Can any one point me to a reference for "Cause and Effect Theory". I did a search on Google and found The Theory of Reciprocity and it talks about the laws of cause and effect. It's just that the first 3 pages of the google search didn't list this theory. I did find the following quote from the "Theory of Reciprocity" interesting.
quote:
Whether portrayed in a theological or secular context, to attribute the presence of the Universe to an event of 'creation' is contrary to logic.
Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. The very process of thought is governed by the rules cause and effect, so scholars instinctively presume the cosmos 'began' with an instance of creation. But is the phenomenon of being the result of a process - is it the product of cause and effect?
How do you explain the physical presence of the Universe?
The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most popular theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the beginning of time a transformation must have occurred which brought forth the material presence of the cosmos. Contemporary astronomers espouse a Theory of Singularity - or Big Bang - which envisions a Universe cast from the bowels of some spontaneous cosmic eruption. Theologists would have us believe an omnipotent deity gave birth to the heavens and the earth. But either contention would require the pre-existence of a spawning force - the very presence of which would violate the original assertion that nothing existed. And if all which exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning.
Supernatural versions of creation sidestep the issue of redundancy by declaring that whatever created the Universe was not subject to the laws of nature. Of course when the rules of reality are suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one such exemption can be conceded, so can others - without limit.
The process of change is always explained in terms of cause and effect - action and reaction. Conditions or states of being change during the process of cause and effect. But existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon it must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a function of existence. This is, of course, the antithesis of the premise that existence is a function of cause and effect - the product of creation.
quote:
Whether portrayed in a theological or secular context, to attribute the presence of the Universe to an event of 'creation' is contrary to logic.
Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition.
(bill) Not to mention the fact that it aligns with reality...
The very process of thought is governed by the rules cause and effect, so scholars instinctively presume the cosmos 'began' with an instance of creation.
(bill) Yes that is right. And NASA, amongst others, agrees:
"Recently, NASA has made some astounding discoveries which lend themselves to the proof of the Big Bang theory. Most importantly, astronomers using the Astro-2 observatory were able to confirm one of the requirements for the foundation of the universe through the Big Bang."
"However, science has now told us that the universe is, in fact, finite, with a beginning, a middle, and a future. "
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning."
But is the phenomenon of being the result of a process - is it the product of cause and effect?
(bill) Yes
How do you explain the physical presence of the Universe?
(bill) That is what I have been asking the atheist from round 1? Either the physical preseance of the universe is a result of:
A. a first cause that transcends the universe itself.
or
B. eternal, infinite matter
The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification,
(bill) Unless that nothing turns into something. And if that something ends up being the universe then a lot of justification will be required. And at the bare min. the justification will be inquired.
so most popular theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void.
(bill) Popular atheistic theories that is. Because they must produce an infinite first cause, or eternal matter, in the origin hypothesis of an atheistic universe. So of coarse they want to begin with a primal void, their worldview begins with a primal void, so what other conclusion should we expect?
At the beginning of time a transformation must have occurred which brought forth the material presence of the cosmos.
(bill) Yes, a first cause. And as I predicted this gives the atheist fits. They either have to dream up a infinite first cause, other then God, or they have to dream up how the universe can be eternal and uncaused, which fly's in the face of what most of their cohorts will even embrace, let alone NASA.
Contemporary astronomers espouse a Theory of Singularity - or Big Bang - which envisions a Universe cast from the bowels of some spontaneous cosmic eruption.
(bill) Yet the atheist fully acknowledges they have no clue, at all, as to where these "bowls" came from, or how they act spontaneously? It all comes straight from their imagination. *sigh*
Theologists would have us believe an omnipotent deity gave birth to the heavens and the earth. But either contention would require the pre-existence of a spawning force - the very presence of which would violate the original assertion that nothing existed. And if all which exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry.
(bill) A. From day 1 I have held the notion the deity is eternal. He is the uncaused first cause. He has no beginning or end. He is not limited to time and space, or cause and effect, because he created time and space, cause and effect. If the |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
