Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Another problem with God debates

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 9:13:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Alternative theories, like the B-theory of time or the multiverse, are thrown out to rebut a first cause or the fine-tuning of the universe. These are purely speculative and don't merit plausibility. It seems like a speculative possibility = plausibility in these kinds of debates.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 4:49:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 9:13:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Alternative theories, like the B-theory of time or the multiverse, are thrown out to rebut a first cause or the fine-tuning of the universe. These are purely speculative and don't merit plausibility. It seems like a speculative possibility = plausibility in these kinds of debates.

Most try to give evidence of the B theory of time. But nonetheless, I think most use these to show those arguments for God are underdetermined, not that they are plausible. At least, that's my position in regards to the FTA and the multiverse.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 5:00:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 9:13:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Alternative theories, like the B-theory of time or the multiverse, are thrown out to rebut a first cause or the fine-tuning of the universe. These are purely speculative and don't merit plausibility. It seems like a speculative possibility = plausibility in these kinds of debates.

... And the assumption of the A-Series of time (a necessary assumption for the KCA), and the assumption that there is only one universe with laws (a necessary assumption for the FTA to be sound) aren't purely speculative?

Hello? Double standard much? Those concepts are raised to challenge the unjustified assumptions in their respective arguments. While I actually see reasons to think both are positively true, whether they are true or not is irrelevant because it is the positive assumption that is needed to be justified in the first place. Otherwise the conclusions simply do not follow.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 10:47:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 9:13:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Alternative theories, like the B-theory of time or the multiverse, are thrown out to rebut a first cause or the fine-tuning of the universe. These are purely speculative and don't merit plausibility. It seems like a speculative possibility = plausibility in these kinds of debates.

Seeing that your not a fan of purely speculative propositions what do you make of the following........... a timeless mind, existing without body, that is the "cause" of the universe, a "cause" absent pre existing material and time.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:15:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 9:13:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Alternative theories, like the B-theory of time or the multiverse, are thrown out to rebut a first cause or the fine-tuning of the universe. These are purely speculative and don't merit plausibility. It seems like a speculative possibility = plausibility in these kinds of debates.

Actually, B-Theory is entailed by The Minkowskian interpretation of Special Relativity (which the vast majority of scientists believe in). The multiverse is entailed by Inflation. So, no they aren't merely speculative.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 5:21:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 5:00:54 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/16/2015 9:13:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Alternative theories, like the B-theory of time or the multiverse, are thrown out to rebut a first cause or the fine-tuning of the universe. These are purely speculative and don't merit plausibility. It seems like a speculative possibility = plausibility in these kinds of debates.

... And the assumption of the A-Series of time (a necessary assumption for the KCA), and the assumption that there is only one universe with laws (a necessary assumption for the FTA to be sound) aren't purely speculative?

Hello? Double standard much? Those concepts are raised to challenge the unjustified assumptions in their respective arguments. While I actually see reasons to think both are positively true, whether they are true or not is irrelevant because it is the positive assumption that is needed to be justified in the first place. Otherwise the conclusions simply do not follow.

No, the A-series of time along with the assumption that there exists one universe isn't purely speculative. The A-series is the only one compatible with causality. We don't consider anything to be scientific if it doesn't match up with the law of cause and effect. It's also intuitively evident that we have an "arrow of time" (a yesterday, today, and tomorrow). It's compatible with our laws of physics. There no good reason to accept that the B-series is true over the A-series because of this.

We only have evidence of one universe. Sure, there *could* be more than one, we just have no justifiable reason for believing it to be true. If an assertion is unjustified, like the multiverse theory, it shouldn't merit plausibility.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 12:58:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 5:21:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/17/2015 5:00:54 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/16/2015 9:13:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Alternative theories, like the B-theory of time or the multiverse, are thrown out to rebut a first cause or the fine-tuning of the universe. These are purely speculative and don't merit plausibility. It seems like a speculative possibility = plausibility in these kinds of debates.

... And the assumption of the A-Series of time (a necessary assumption for the KCA), and the assumption that there is only one universe with laws (a necessary assumption for the FTA to be sound) aren't purely speculative?

Hello? Double standard much? Those concepts are raised to challenge the unjustified assumptions in their respective arguments. While I actually see reasons to think both are positively true, whether they are true or not is irrelevant because it is the positive assumption that is needed to be justified in the first place. Otherwise the conclusions simply do not follow.

No, the A-series of time along with the assumption that there exists one universe isn't purely speculative. The A-series is the only one compatible with causality.

Not even close. Causality in physics (and thus, I would propose, in general) does not require for tensed facts to exist. It simply deals with changes of state.

The state of things at T=0 and the state of things at T=1 and how they connect. This does not require the A-Series at all.

We don't consider anything to be scientific if it doesn't match up with the law of cause and effect.

Good thing that the B and C Series DO match up with cause and effect.

It's also intuitively evident that we have an "arrow of time" (a yesterday, today, and tomorrow).

Arguments from intuition are not good arguments.

It's compatible with our laws of physics.

Not relativity.

There no good reason to accept that the B-series is true over the A-series because of this.

Relativity suggests the B-Theory of Time, Quantum Physics suggests it as well.

We only have evidence of one universe.

Depends on how you define evidence.

Sure, there *could* be more than one, we just have no justifiable reason for believing it to be true.

Outside of the Many Worlds Interpretation in QM being the current best explanation?
Outside of the fact that whenever we thought there was only one cosmic body (one planet, one solar system, one galaxy, etc.) it has been shown to be wrong (meaning there is a good chance of more than one universe).
As well as a few others.

If an assertion is unjustified, like the multiverse theory, it shouldn't merit plausibility.

Except that it isn't unjustified.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 1:38:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 9:13:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Alternative theories, like the B-theory of time or the multiverse, are thrown out to rebut a first cause or the fine-tuning of the universe. These are purely speculative and don't merit plausibility. It seems like a speculative possibility = plausibility in these kinds of debates.

How many of such debates have you actually read? Please, find me some where someone just throws B-theory out there w/o any support.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 2:15:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 12:58:57 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/18/2015 5:21:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/17/2015 5:00:54 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/16/2015 9:13:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Alternative theories, like the B-theory of time or the multiverse, are thrown out to rebut a first cause or the fine-tuning of the universe. These are purely speculative and don't merit plausibility. It seems like a speculative possibility = plausibility in these kinds of debates.

... And the assumption of the A-Series of time (a necessary assumption for the KCA), and the assumption that there is only one universe with laws (a necessary assumption for the FTA to be sound) aren't purely speculative?

Hello? Double standard much? Those concepts are raised to challenge the unjustified assumptions in their respective arguments. While I actually see reasons to think both are positively true, whether they are true or not is irrelevant because it is the positive assumption that is needed to be justified in the first place. Otherwise the conclusions simply do not follow.

No, the A-series of time along with the assumption that there exists one universe isn't purely speculative. The A-series is the only one compatible with causality.

Not even close. Causality in physics (and thus, I would propose, in general) does not require for tensed facts to exist. It simply deals with changes of state.

The state of things at T=0 and the state of things at T=1 and how they connect. This does not require the A-Series at all.

"Originally Posted by pietervl
But if temporal becoming is an illusion, i.e. each frame is frozen for eternity, then in what sense is one effecting the other? Just like the Bugs Bunny film, each frame is independent of the other. How can you say there is a causal relationship? So to go back to my example, on the B-theory of time, the football is no more breaking the glass then a cm causes the next cm on a ruler, since on that view time is like another spacial dimension."
https://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com...

We don't consider anything to be scientific if it doesn't match up with the law of cause and effect.

Good thing that the B and C Series DO match up with cause and effect.

I've never heard of a C theory. I thought B theory was headache-inducing enough.

It's also intuitively evident that we have an "arrow of time" (a yesterday, today, and tomorrow).

Arguments from intuition are not good arguments.

We rely on our intuitions all the time. The way we perceive reality is intuitive. A priori knowledge is intuitive.

It's compatible with our laws of physics.

Not relativity.

From what I recall its compatible with general but not special relativity?

There no good reason to accept that the B-series is true over the A-series because of this.

Relativity suggests the B-Theory of Time, Quantum Physics suggests it as well.

There isn't a preferred interpretation of Quantum mechanics yet. I'm also pretty sure that if all possible worlds actually exist, like B-theory posits, this would entail God's existence. Modal realism.

We only have evidence of one universe.

Depends on how you define evidence.

Why?

Sure, there *could* be more than one, we just have no justifiable reason for believing it to be true.

Outside of the Many Worlds Interpretation in QM being the current best explanation?
Outside of the fact that whenever we thought there was only one cosmic body (one planet, one solar system, one galaxy, etc.) it has been shown to be wrong (meaning there is a good chance of more than one universe).
As well as a few others.

You mean most accepted? Discovery of things within our space-time is fundamentally different than discovery of more than one dimension of space-time.

If an assertion is unjustified, like the multiverse theory, it shouldn't merit plausibility.

Except that it isn't unjustified.

I guess I'll grant you that, for now. I'm not read up on the subject. It confuses the hell out of my simple mind.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 2:25:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 1:38:06 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/16/2015 9:13:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Alternative theories, like the B-theory of time or the multiverse, are thrown out to rebut a first cause or the fine-tuning of the universe. These are purely speculative and don't merit plausibility. It seems like a speculative possibility = plausibility in these kinds of debates.

How many of such debates have you actually read? Please, find me some where someone just throws B-theory out there w/o any support.

I've read a few, but never fully understood it. I guess at this point in time it's the most intellectual honest thing to say that I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether the defense/support of B-theory merits acceptance. The defense/support is hypothetical and can't be demonstrated to someone like me who doesn't have a background in physics. I have a few problems, philosophically, with B-theory that I believe can't be reconciled. In the meantime I'll learn more about it.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:03:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 2:25:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 1:38:06 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/16/2015 9:13:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Alternative theories, like the B-theory of time or the multiverse, are thrown out to rebut a first cause or the fine-tuning of the universe. These are purely speculative and don't merit plausibility. It seems like a speculative possibility = plausibility in these kinds of debates.

How many of such debates have you actually read? Please, find me some where someone just throws B-theory out there w/o any support.

I've read a few, but never fully understood it. I guess at this point in time it's the most intellectual honest thing to say that I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether the defense/support of B-theory merits acceptance. The defense/support is hypothetical
Ok, then instead find me a debate where the support is indeed hypothetical.

and can't be demonstrated to someone like me who doesn't have a background in physics.
You don't need to understand any equations whatsoever.
https://www.youtube.com...

I have a few problems, philosophically, with B-theory that I believe can't be reconciled. In the meantime I'll learn more about it.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 6:00:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 10:47:09 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 9/16/2015 9:13:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Alternative theories, like the B-theory of time or the multiverse, are thrown out to rebut a first cause or the fine-tuning of the universe. These are purely speculative and don't merit plausibility. It seems like a speculative possibility = plausibility in these kinds of debates.

Seeing that your not a fan of purely speculative propositions what do you make of the following........... a timeless mind, existing without body, that is the "cause" of the universe, a "cause" absent pre existing material and time.

Is time absent from existing material? If not, please show me the material you attribute to time so I can examine it, test it, etc. Timeless mind isn't a demonstration of completely understanding what is meant. "Timeless" meaning no concept of time would be wrong according to text because God has a concept of time. "Timeless"as in not being affected by time, well, nothing in physical form is affected by time, I.e. there is no Causal nexus between time and anything physical, not one scintilla of evidence that proves a connection. Zilch.
Second there are assertions about relativity, not sure if Einstein made them, that are completely lacking an understanding of biology. First example is someone traveling at the speed of light observing a clock not traveling at the speed of light or a clock is someone else's "experience". See , in order to observe the clock you would have to be able to have light reflecting off of it into your eyes. If you are traveling at the speed of light, light couldn't reflect off of anything because it would have to be traveling faster than the speed of light to make the thing observable. Therefore, no observing of the "clock". Not to mention you can't actually prove a clock is anything other than a constructed device made by man. If you do have proof that a clock is connected to "that special dimension we call time", ill again need to see the physical evidence you have to prove it. I merely think time is someones' God, and God is someones' other God. Of course time has a built by man "idol", I.e. clock.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 6:52:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 9:13:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Alternative theories, like the B-theory of time or the multiverse, are thrown out to rebut a first cause or the fine-tuning of the universe. These are purely speculative and don't merit plausibility. It seems like a speculative possibility = plausibility in these kinds of debates.
I think we started off on the wrong foot, although I don't remember your screen name. And I can be very obnoxious sometimes. But , I would suggest you look deeply into the proper rules of logic in regards to syllogism. The individuals on this website are engaged in freshman, maybe at most sophmore, applications of a syllogism. God, for or against, being used in a syllogism violates rules of content. The argument is relegated to committing personal opinion fallacy. Only subject matter that are agreed upon facts are applicable to the use of the form known as syllogism. I would suggest reading Aristotelian history's and bounce around to searching proper subject matter in regards to syllogism. I can't undo what I said, I can only say it was a mistake, if it was actually you, I do apologize.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 11:55:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 5:00:54 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/16/2015 9:13:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Alternative theories, like the B-theory of time or the multiverse, are thrown out to rebut a first cause or the fine-tuning of the universe. These are purely speculative and don't merit plausibility. It seems like a speculative possibility = plausibility in these kinds of debates.

... And the assumption of the A-Series of time (a necessary assumption for the KCA)

- Not necessarily.

and the assumption that there is only one universe with laws (a necessary assumption for the FTA to be sound) aren't purely speculative?

- Not necessarily.

Hello? Double standard much? Those concepts are raised to challenge the unjustified assumptions in their respective arguments.

- In the end, they aren't that different.

While I actually see reasons to think both are positively true, whether they are true or not is irrelevant because it is the positive assumption that is needed to be justified in the first place. Otherwise the conclusions simply do not follow.

- Depends on the conclusion.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...