Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Universe Beginning?

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 7:21:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I am pretty skeptical that science especially the methods now could never never find out the beginning of the universe.

Mind you I mean Absolute Universe all things that exist, not just sense perception aspects. But what every we don't know, in what every form it is. Gods, outside anything what is IS apart of the abolute universe. Mind you this is really the original philosophers definition.

1. Argument from sense perception:
P1 All experiences is within a frame work of consciousness/mind.
P2 And I am refering to inner and outer experiences.
P3 Physical perception is only one aspect of our over all consciousness.
C1 Since through this alone we could never conclude if its a full account of the universe because it covers a limited portion of possible existence.

Extra: We have found out that things such as radiation, magnetism and now possibly dark matter exist. There is reason to think we will discover more physical entities. We can never know if we have discovered all that exist. Therefore we could never know of the beginning of the universe.

2 .Argument from recognition:
Consciousness is only Recognition not necessary all of Reality. Recognition=/=Reality. Thus we could never conclude that we have covered all aspects of the existing universe.
Therefore we could never conclude that all that exist has a beginning.
Q.E.D.

3 Argument from time vs change
Time is a standardized measurement of change which we use to measure change. Change is Change. via what is IS. So change is eternal. Therefore we could never conclude if reality began.

Extra support:
Time is dependent upon comparing the difference of change between two things. Our Time is based on the Change of the Earth motion in relation to its Axis. And that time is divided into 24 pieces and you know the rest. We use that standard rate of change to measure speed by comparative rates of change. Any change will do... we could also estimate time by looking at the changing colour of the sky. we can know time by AN HOUR GLASS, which is just the change of particles in ration to the hour glass itself. But Change is Change and it cah't be its opposite so its eternal. Change is the raw and unmeasured in relation to time.

4. The Big Bang:
Even the bigbang can't represent all of the existenting universe. It does not entail the beginning of universe but rather only a particluar change in it. The singular was still hot. Heat is the movement of molecules. aka a form of CHANGE. Thus it can't even show the real beginning of even the what we perceive with physical senses.

5. Not even God argument:

The Absolute Universe is all things that exist'; that is including Gods or outsides, physical or mental. Absolutely all. (This is the Real, Original philosophers universe) Therefore God cannot be the Cause nor can there a beginning. If he is outside all that exist then he doesn't exist. So God can't be the Creator of the universe.

Any Rational challengers think you can refute them all? I think they are all pretty solid, and they are mutually exclusive. Just one is enough on its own! I don't think they can be refute with our current understanding of the world. Feeling lucky..!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 10:48:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 7:21:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I am pretty skeptical that science especially the methods now could never never find out the beginning of the universe.
You're assuming it had a beginning.

Mind you I mean Absolute Universe all things that exist, not just sense perception aspects. But what every we don't know, in what every form it is. Gods, outside anything what is IS apart of the abolute universe. Mind you this is really the original philosophers definition.
If you believe "what IS is" then is there really a question of beginning? No.

1. Argument from sense perception:
P1 All experiences is within a frame work of consciousness/mind.
P2 And I am refering to inner and outer experiences.
P2 is a false dichotomy according to P1.

P3 Physical perception is only one aspect of our over all consciousness.
P3 also contradicts P1: the physical has not been established within this framework.

C1 Since through this alone we could never conclude if its a full account of the universe because it covers a limited portion of possible existence.
This is a non sequitur.

Extra: We have found out that things such as radiation, magnetism and now possibly dark matter exist. There is reason to think we will discover more physical entities. We can never know if we have discovered all that exist. Therefore we could never know of the beginning of the universe.
1) It has been established that the Universe does not require a beginning via "what IS is".
2) It does not follow that because we do not know everything that exists, that we cannot determine if it did have a beginning.

2 .Argument from recognition:
Consciousness is only Recognition not necessary all of Reality. Recognition=/=Reality. Thus we could never conclude that we have covered all aspects of the existing universe.
This conflicts with P1 above.

Therefore we could never conclude that all that exist has a beginning.
Q.E.D.
Non sequitur.

3 Argument from time vs change
Time is a standardized measurement of change which we use to measure change.
Time is DEFINED operationally in physics and as such it isn't really defined but rather "how to measure time" is defined. Also, time is not a unit of measure; it is a fundamental dimension. Time IS change. I will demonstrate through substitution:

A) "Meter is a standardized measurement of length which we use to measure length." As you can see, meter is a unit but time is NOT a unit.

B) "Length is a standardized measurement of meters which we use to measure meters." As you can see, this also makes no sense.

C) "Seconds is a standardized measurement of time which we use to measure time or change." As you can see, this makes sense and also shows us that time = change.

Change is Change. via what is IS.
That is incorrect.
1) "Change is Change" via Law of Identity. But this circular argument gets no where.

2) "What IS is" because there IS no other possibility; existence is transcendental. The other possibility is non-existence BUT non-existence IS a contradiction and therefore does NOT exist.

3) Change is defined via differences is states of the Universe. Change also requires the existence of at least 2 things.

So change is eternal.
Non sequitur; only existence is eternal. "No existence" is NOT a possibility that exists whereas "no change" IS a possibility that can exist. Ergo, existence IS eternal but change is NOT eternal.

Therefore we could never conclude if reality began.
Non sequitur. We can conclude that existence does NOT require change/time and is therefore timeless/eternal.

Extra support:
Time is dependent upon comparing the difference of change between two things.
That is incorrect because difference of change = change of change which is the rate of change of change or time squared. Here is a BETTER way of stating it:

D1) Time is dependent upon comparing the change between at least two things.

Our Time is based on the Change of the Earth motion in relation to its Axis. And that time is divided into 24 pieces and you know the rest. We use that standard rate of change to measure speed by comparative rates of change.
Well, that's how we started to measure time, but now the base unit of time is the second and it is defined as: "...the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." -Wiki.

Any change will do... we could also estimate time by looking at the changing colour of the sky. we can know time by AN HOUR GLASS, which is just the change of particles in ration to the hour glass itself.

But Change is Change and it cah't be its opposite so its eternal.
Non sequitur. This tautology can be said of just about anything and therefore anything is eternal. It's not about "something not being its opposite" as this is true for all things; it's about whether its opposite is POSSIBLE. In the case of change, its opposite IS possible. There can be a state of NO CHANGE: when there is the minimum of things in the Universe: one. At that point there IS no change yet there IS existence.

Change is the raw and unmeasured in relation to time.
No; change = time. Neither one can happen without the other.

4. The Big Bang:
Even the bigbang can't represent all of the existenting universe.
It entails all that we know of the Universe, how can we entail anything more if we don't know about it?

It does not entail the beginning of universe but rather only a particluar change in it.
Perhaps it's because it does not acknowledge that there actual is or needs to be a beginning? Think about it.

The singular was still hot.
This is in correct: there can be no heat in the singular.

Heat is the movement of molecules. aka a form of CHANGE.
Molecules NOT molecule; ergo, there can be no heat in the "singular."

Thus it can't even show the real beginning of even the what we perceive with physical senses.
Again, you are assuming that there is indeed a beginning or even a need for one.


5. Not even God argument:

The Absolute Universe is all things that exist'; that is including Gods or outsides, physical or mental. Absolutely all. (This is the Real, Original philosophers universe)
Agreed.

Therefore God cannot be the Cause nor can there a beginning.
Yes, there is no beginning BUT God could be the cause of the beginning of time.

If he is outside all that exist then he doesn't exist.
Agreed.

So God can't be the Creator of the universe.
But He can be the creator of time.

Any Rational challengers think you can refute them all?
Just did.

I think they are all pretty solid, and they are mutually exclusive. Just one is enough on its own! I don't think they can be refute with our current understanding of the world. Feeling lucky..!
No need for luck!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 11:20:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The "Big Bang" is an element, a component, of the "Big Bang Theory" which, if we want to be precise, can actually refer to a number of proposed theories currently being bandied about among theoretical scientists.

This element is represented by a mathematical singularity as a consequence of merging general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM). It serves two purposes: 1) a temporal reference point on which to base other events occurring in the early universe. That is, instead of saying that atoms formed X billions of years ago, we say it happened Y seconds after the Big Bang. The numbers from this perspective are more manageable; 2) the existence of a mathematical singularity indicates that our theories are incorrect.

This second part is the most important part. While, by the very nature of science we understand that our theories should always be treated as incomplete, the existence of the singularity as a result of the equations of general relativity shows us that they are incomplete in a rather more specific way, above and beyond a mere mental caveat that is necessarily included in all scientific theories.

The point being, of course, that though the "Big Bang" is part of our scientific models that we have artificially constructed with which to represent reality it is, most certainly not part of reality itself.

To speak of the Big Bang singularity as something that actually happened is premature at best and just plain wrong at worst. We need revise our theories to excise the mathematical absuridities that result from combining GR and QM, and there is no telling what new theories will replace them, or what they will say about the Universe. Granted, they will have to be consistent with what we already know, but in terms of the early universe, after which our current models break down, we can't say.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 1:18:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fool and the Boone: on the begging of the universe:

Refutations and Replies Part 1

The Fool: I am pretty skeptical that science especially the methods now could never never find out the beginning of the universe.

tBoonePickens : : You're assuming it had a beginning.

The Fool: now that you asked. ;) No I am not, but I am reversing the possibity on some kind of futuristic understanding which I may proof me wrong. I am but a Fool you know. But according to what I know now, I can't concieve of it being other wise.

Mind you I mean Absolute Universe all things that exist, not just sense perception aspects. But what every we don't know, in what every form it is. Gods, outside anything what is IS apart of the abolute universe. Mind you this is really the original philosophers definition.

tBoonePickens : If you believe "what IS is" then is there really a question of beginning? No.

The Fool: Exactly but everybody is not sensitive to that. Its irrational to believe otherwise. So yes the game is done before it starts.

1. Argument from sense perception:
P1 All experiences is within a frame work of consciousness/mind.
P2 And I am refering to inner and outer experiences.
P3 Physical perception is only one aspect of our over all consciousness.
C1 Since through this alone we could never conclude if its a full account of the universe because it covers a limited portion of possible existence.

tBoonePickens : P2 is a false dichotomy according to P1:

The Fool: Firstly this would still make the argument right. Secondly there are different aspect of consciousnss, some we percieve as being inner and some as outer. Aka we percieve are physical consciousness as outer. Therefore either way its right.

tBoonePickens : P3 also contradicts P1: the physical has not been established within this framework.

The Fool: physical is based on sense percpetion. And a logical rule which state out sense percption has universal access. That is all it is. Scientist don't have supernatural powers. At least not he last time I check. Well make Hawkings does secretly.

tBoonePickens : This is a non sequitur.

The Fool: (Bold assumption fallacy)

Extra: We have found out that things such as radiation, magnetism and now possibly dark matter exist. There is reason to think we will discover more physical entities. We can never know if we have discovered all that exist. Therefore we could never know of the beginning of the universe.

tBoonePickens: 1) It has been established that the Universe does not require a beginning via "what IS is".

The Fool: thus the mutually exclusive Part at the end. Each is its own argument.

tBoonePickens : 2) It does not follow that because we do not know everything that exists, that we cannot determine if it did have a beginning.

The Fool: yes it does because because there can always be something that exist Which was not accounted for in the calculations. So it could never be conclusive.

2 .Argument from recognition:
Consciousness is only Recognition not necessary all of Reality. Recognition=/=Reality. Thus we could never conclude that we have covered all aspects of the existing universe.
Therefore we could never conclude that all that exist has a beginning.
Q.E.D.

tBoonePickens : This conflicts with P1 above. Non sequitur.

The Fool: Tboon try and read the whole set of arguments first. No.. p1 of the first says nothing of reality. Your non sequitar is out of no where and has to connection to anything. YOu have to show where and why its a fallacy. Unless it really obvious, so make sure to explain in what sense is a is a fallacy.

3 Argument from time vs change
Time is a standardized measurement of change which we use to measure change.
tion:Change is Change. via what is IS. So change is eternal. That is incorrect.

Extra support:
Time is dependent upon comparing the change between at least two things.
Therefore we could never conclude if reality began. Our Time is based on the Change of the Earth motion in relation to its Axis. And that time is divided into 24 pieces and you know the rest. We use that standard rate of change to measure speed by comparative rates of change. Any change will do... we could also estimate time by looking at the changing colour of the sky. we can know time by AN HOUR GLASS, which is just the change of particles in ration to the hour glass itself. But Change is Change and it can't be its opposite so its eternal. Change is the raw and unmeasured in relation to time.

No; change = time. Neither one can happen without the other.

The Fool: no time is measured change. doesn't depend on 2 objects. time does/ R.I.P. That argument.

Tips from the Boone
A) "Meter is a standardized measurement of length which we use to measure length." As you can see, meter is a unit but time is NOT a unit.

The Fool: Of course we have units of time. Come on now. lol

B) "Length is a standardized measurement of meters which we use to measure meters." As you can see, this also makes no sense.

The Fool: Yep its a measurement of distance. Good job.

C) "Seconds is a standardized measurement of time which we use to measure time or change." As you can see, this makes sense and also shows us that time = change.

The Fool: Great 3 for 3. Keep up the good work.<(8D)


1) "Change is Change" via Law of Identity. But this circular argument gets no where.

Tips from the Hill!!:
The Fool: its not circular its tautology, which can be extremly powerfull arguements LiKe is IS. Red is Red its and irreducible entity. Circular is different type.

Circular is when you are asking what constitutes someting, and then we say the same work. Hey see you learned something new today.

2) "What IS is" because there IS no other possibility; existence is transcendental. The other possibility is non-existence BUT non-existence IS a contradiction and therefore does NOT exist.

The Fool: Trancendental just mean from beyond. But we don't know that. But exist that must exist. So existence it FIRST always. What is IS! it the fundemtal rule of logic. For even God IS. or he is not God.

3) Change is defined via differences is states of the Universe. Change also requires the existence of at least 2 things.

The Fool: Bravo..

Non sequitur;

The Fool: this hasn't been established. (bold assumption fallacy)

only existence is eternal.

The Fool: this hasn't been established. (bold assumption fallacy)

"No existence" is NOT a possibility that exists whereas "no change" IS a possibility hat can exist. Ergo, existence IS eternal but change is NOT eternal.

The Fool: You havent demonstrate that change is not eternal. You have only showed that existence is. but not that change is not .

Non sequitur. We can conclude that existence does NOT require change/time and is therefore timeless/eternal.

The Fool: well when you can demonstrate that it doesn't everything will be Good. But then you would have to say change popped out of now where. Thought my theory is better. Recognition depends on change, and all out knowledge is of recognion. If change topped we couldn't tell the difference because we woudl have stopped. So we can not make claims beyond it. Q.E.D.

Round 1 for the Good Guy! yeaah
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 1:35:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: 4. The Big Bang:
Even the bigbang can't represent all of the existenting universe. It does not entail the beginning of universe but rather only a particluar change in it. The singular was still hot. Heat is the movement of molecules. aka a form of CHANGE. Thus it can't even show the real beginning of even the what we perceive with physical senses.

4. The Big Bang:
Even the big bang can't represent all of the existenting universe.
It entails all that we know of the Universe, how can we entail anything more if we don't know about it?

The Fool: OKAY????. lol

It does not entail the beginning of universe but rather only a particular change in it.
Perhaps it's because it does not acknowledge that there actual is or needs to be a beginning? Think about it.

The Fool: Okay????????

. The singular was still hot

This is in correct: there can be no heat in the singular.

The Fool: okay??????

"According to the Big Bang model, the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like spots on an inflating balloon. The graphic scheme above is an artist's concept illustrating the expansion of a portion of a flat universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Heat is the movement of molecules. aka a form of CHANGE.
Molecules NOT molecule; ergo, there can be no heat in the "singular."
The Fool: <(XD)

Thus it can't even show the real beginning of even the what we perceive with physical senses.

Again, you are assuming that there is indeed a beginning or even a need for one.

The Fool: Okay??????????

The Fool: 5. Not even God argument:
The Absolute Universe is all things that exist'; that is including Gods or outsides, physical or mental. Absolutely all. (This is the Real, Original philosophers universe) Therefore God cannot be the Cause nor can there a beginning. If he is outside all that exist then he doesn't exist. So God can't be the Creator of the universe.

5. Not even God argument:
The Absolute Universe is all things that exist'; that is including Gods or outsides, physical or mental. Absolutely all. (This is the Real, Original philosophers universe)

Agreed.

Therefore God cannot be the Cause nor can there a beginning.

Yes, there is no beginning BUT God could be the cause of the beginning of time.

If he is outside all that exist then he doesn't exist.

Agreed.

So God can't be the Creator of the universe.

But He can be the creator of time.

The Fool: ANd for the Finish.

If a miricle is the impossible, then any other explanation is more likley to be true and is therefore BETTER!. (Hume re-masterd by The Fool)

The Fool.. On the Hill!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 2:01:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 11:20:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
The "Big Bang" is an element, a component, of the "Big Bang Theory" which, if we want to be precise, can actually refer to a number of proposed theories currently being bandied about among theoretical scientists.

This element is represented by a mathematical singularity as a consequence of merging general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM). It serves two purposes: 1) a temporal reference point on which to base other events occurring in the early universe. That is, instead of saying that atoms formed X billions of years ago, we say it happened Y seconds after the Big Bang. The numbers from this perspective are more manageable; 2) the existence of a mathematical singularity indicates that our theories are incorrect.

This second part is the most important part. While, by the very nature of science we understand that our theories should always be treated as incomplete, the existence of the singularity as a result of the equations of general relativity shows us that they are incomplete in a rather more specific way, above and beyond a mere mental caveat that is necessarily included in all scientific theories.

The point being, of course, that though the "Big Bang" is part of our scientific models that we have artificially constructed with which to represent reality it is, most certainly not part of reality itself.

To speak of the Big Bang singularity as something that actually happened is premature at best and just plain wrong at worst. We need revise our theories to excise the mathematical absuridities that result from combining GR and QM, and there is no telling what new theories will replace them, or what they will say about the Universe. Granted, they will have to be consistent with what we already know, but in terms of the early universe, after which our current models break down, we can't say.

The Fool: Firstly to say things break down. Is not a rationall claim. I at best means I don;t know. There as my arguments show we could never claim that its the beginnning. So you are on my Teams. Hey partner!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 3:49:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 1:18:51 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Fool and the Boone: on the begging of the universe:
I'm guessing you mean beginning of the Universe...but between your spelling and your vacillation, who knows!

Refutations and Replies Part 1
tBoonePickens : : You're assuming it had a beginning.
The Fool: now that you asked. ;) No I am not, but I am reversing the possibity on some kind of futuristic understanding which I may proof me wrong. I am but a Fool you know. But according to what I know now, I can't concieve of it being other wise.
Well, I cannot help you in your failure to be able to conceive. I would suggest that the Universe does not require a beginning because existence is transcendental.

tBoonePickens : If you believe "what IS is" then is there really a question of beginning? Answer: No.
The Fool: Exactly but everybody is not sensitive to that. Its irrational to believe otherwise. So yes the game is done before it starts.
The question to ask is, "what other possibilities are there" (to what IS is)? Well there is only one other possibility: "what IS NOT is" but that is a contradiction and so we are left with only one possibility.

1. Argument from sense perception:
P1 All experiences is within a frame work of consciousness/mind.
P2 And I am refering to inner and outer experiences.
P3 Physical perception is only one aspect of our over all consciousness.
C1 Since through this alone we could never conclude if its a full account of the universe because it covers a limited portion of possible existence.
tBoonePickens : P2 is a false dichotomy according to P1:
The Fool: Firstly this would still make the argument right.
If so, then remove all references to outer.

Secondly there are different aspect of consciousnss, some we percieve as being inner and some as outer. Aka we percieve are physical consciousness as outer. Therefore either way its right.
No, according to P1 EVERYTHING is inner. There is NO ambiguity.

tBoonePickens : P3 also contradicts P1: the physical has not been established within this framework.
The Fool: physical is based on sense percpetion.
So it is "sense perception of the physical," but not the "physical." Or if we remove your "word games" it's simply sense perception.

And a logical rule which state out sense percption has universal access.
Don't know what you mean by "universal access" or what rule you refer to. Regardless, according to P1 the Universe IS the perceived Universe.

That is all it is. Scientist don't have supernatural powers. At least not he last time I check. Well make Hawkings does secretly.
Strawman; it doesn't take supernatural powers to believe in Physicalism, on the contrary!

tBoonePickens : This is a non sequitur.
The Fool: (Bold assumption fallacy)
Obviously, C1 is a "Bold assumption fallacy" so that's why it does not follow!

Extra: We have found out that things such as radiation, magnetism and now possibly dark matter exist. There is reason to think we will discover more physical entities. We can never know if we have discovered all that exist. Therefore we could never know of the beginning of the universe.
tBoonePickens: 1) It has been established that the Universe does not require a beginning via "what IS is"
The Fool: thus the mutually exclusive Part at the end. Each is its own argument.
Sure, but that's like saying "we could never really know a square-circle". So what?

tBoonePickens : 2) It does not follow that because we do not know everything that exists, that we cannot determine if it did have a beginning.
The Fool: yes it does because because there can always be something that exist Which was not accounted for in the calculations. So it could never be conclusive.
Again, we can only deal with what we know; we don't know what we don't know! There MAY BE something unaccounted for; not HAS TO BE but MAY BE.

2 .Argument from recognition:
Consciousness is only Recognition not necessary all of Reality. Recognition=/=Reality. Thus we could never conclude that we have covered all aspects of the existing universe.
Therefore we could never conclude that all that exist has a beginning.
Q.E.D.
tBoonePickens : This conflicts with P1 above. Non sequitur.
The Fool: Tboon try and read the whole set of arguments first.
I did and you should not have assumed otherwise.

No.. p1 of the first says nothing of reality.
So then you are saying that P1 deals in fantasy?

Your non sequitar is out of no where and has to connection to anything. YOu have to show where and why its a fallacy. Unless it really obvious, so make sure to explain in what sense is a is a fallacy.
If P1 does not deal with reality then what does it deal with, fantasy? Please answer the question.

3 Argument from time vs change
Time is a standardized measurement of change which we use to measure change.
tion:Change is Change. via what is IS. So change is eternal.
That is incorrect.
Extra support:
Time is dependent upon comparing the change between at least two things.
Therefore we could never conclude if reality began. Our Time is based on the Change of the Earth motion in relation to its Axis. And that time is divided into 24 pieces and you know the rest. We use that standard rate of change to measure speed by comparative rates of change. Any change will do... we could also estimate time by looking at the changing colour of the sky. we can know time by AN HOUR GLASS, which is just the change of particles in ration to the hour glass itself. But Change is Change and it can't be its opposite so its eternal. Change is the raw and unmeasured in relation to time.
No; change = time. Neither one can happen without the other.

The Fool: no time is measured change. doesn't depend on 2 objects. time does/ R.I.P. That argument.
BOTH Time and change DEPEND on 2 or more objects! Please show how time or change can occur if there is ONLY 1 object in existence? EPIC FAIL.

Tips from the Boone
A) "Meter is a standardized measurement of length which we use to measure length." As you can see, meter is a unit but time is NOT a unit.
The Fool: Of course we have units of time. Come on now. lol
Re-read and try to understand what I wrote. OBVIOUSLY there are units of time; HOWEVER, you keep confusing the units with the dimension.

B) "Length is a standardized measurement of meters which we use to measure meters." As you can see, this also makes no sense.
The Fool: Yep its a measurement of distance. Good job.
Exactly, and so you are incorrect in your statement! You are confusing the dimension with the unit.

C) "Seconds is a standardized measurement of time which we use to measure time or change." As you can see, this makes sense and also shows us that time = change.
The Fool: Great 3 for 3. Keep up the good work.<(8D)
Thanks. I do some of my easiest work disproving you!

(Continued)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 3:54:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 1:18:51 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
1) "Change is Change" via Law of Identity.
But this circular argument gets no where.

Tips from the Hill!!:
The Fool: its not circular its tautology, which can be extremly powerfull arguements LiKe is IS.
I think you're missing the point. The law of identity can be applied to anything and so applying here makes no difference whether it's tautological or circular.

Red is Red its and irreducible entity. Circular is different type.
Again, this argument misses the point. Let me show you why:

1.0) There CAN exist CHANGE = True
1.1) There CAN exist NO CHANGE = True
1.2) CHANGE is NOT tautological because 1.1 is NOT a contradiction

2.0) There CAN exist RED = True
2.1) There CAN exist NOT RED = True
2.2) RED is NOT tautological because 2.1 is NOT a contradiction

3.0) There CAN exist EXISTENCE = True
3.1) There CAN exist NON-EXISTENCE = False
3.2) EXISTENCE IS tautological because 3.1 IS a contradiction

Circular is when you are asking what constitutes someting, and then we say the same work. Hey see you learned something new today.
I learn new things every day, but not this time. However, I am SURE you've learned something today if you understand the above!

2) "What IS is" because there IS no other possibility; existence is transcendental. The other possibility is non-existence BUT non-existence IS a contradiction and therefore does NOT exist.
The Fool: Trancendental just mean from beyond.
You know what I mean. See above.

But exist that must exist. So existence it FIRST always. What is IS! it the fundemtal rule of logic. For even God IS. or he is not God.
And I have just explained WHY "exist that must exist": because there is not other POSSIBLE alternative and NOT because of the Law of Identity. And by the way, we do KNOW that.

3) Change is defined via differences in states of the Universe. Change also requires the existence of at least 2 things.
The Fool: Bravo..
This means that both TIME and CHANGE require at least 2 things in the Universe.

So change is eternal.
Non sequitur;
The Fool: this hasn't been established. (bold assumption fallacy)
Yes, it has not been established that change is eternal, ergo it does not follow. Do I have to spell everything out for you?

only existence is eternal.
The Fool: this hasn't been established. (bold assumption fallacy)
EPIC FAIL. It has only been established like 10 times already! It's a point that you yourself have made again and again: What is IS! Existence exists! Why? Not because of the law of identity but because there is NO OTHER possibility because the negation of existence is a paradox! That's what makes it a tautology! Consequently there CANNOT exist a time in which existence does not exist! ERGO it is eternal (timelessly or otherwise.)

"No existence" is NOT a possibility that exists whereas "no change" IS a possibility that can exist. Ergo, existence IS eternal but change is NOT eternal.
The Fool: You havent demonstrate that change is not eternal.
Are you kidding me? Read the above it EXPLICITLY demonstrated it!

You have only showed that existence is. but not that change is not.
The other way around, Fool! When the Universe becomes ONE undivided whole (ie the Omega state) there will only be ONE thing in the Universe. There will be NO change thus change is NOT eternal and there WILL be existence: the ONE thing! Spelling it out for you yet again!

Non sequitur. We can conclude that existence does NOT require change/time and is therefore timeless/eternal.
The Fool: well when you can demonstrate that it doesn't everything will be Good.
I have; but you seem to think I am referring to the beginning of time but I am referring to the end! Either way, it serves to show a POSSIBLE scenario where time/change no longer exist but the Universe (existence) does!

But then you would have to say change popped out of now where.
No. All I have to say is that change began.

Thought my theory is better.
Sure if by better you mean full of logical inconsistencies!

Recognition depends on change, and all out knowledge is of recognion. If change topped we couldn't tell the difference because we woudl have stopped.
That is correct, but so what? I never said we could experience it...then again, there's nothing to experience! I am DESCRIBING a POSSIBILITY.

So we can not make claims beyond it. Q.E.D.
Who's making claims beyond it? I'm making claims IN it or AT it.

Round 1 for the Good Guy! yeaah
Thanks, I do fancy myself the Good Guy!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 4:20:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 1:35:10 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: 4. The Big Bang:
Even the bigbang can't represent all of the existenting universe. It does not entail the beginning of universe but rather only a particluar change in it. The singular was still hot. Heat is the movement of molecules. aka a form of CHANGE. Thus it can't even show the real beginning of even the what we perceive with physical senses.
It entails all that we know of the Universe, how can we entail anything more if we don't know about it?
The Fool: OKAY????. lol
Thanks! Hopefully we won't get anymore bold assertions from you!

It does not entail the beginning of universe but rather only a particular change in it.
Perhaps it's because it does not acknowledge that there actual is or needs to be a beginning? Think about it.
The Fool: Okay????????
Is that an acknowledgement that you understand or a question for me to clarify?

. The singular was still hot
This is in correct: there can be no heat in the singular.
The Fool: okay??????
Is that an acknowledgement that you understand or a question for me to clarify?

"According to the Big Bang model, the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like spots on an inflating balloon. The graphic scheme above is an artist's concept illustrating the expansion of a portion of a flat universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
You are MISTAKENLY assuming that the "extremely dense and hot state" is a singularity when in fact it is not. This extremely dense and hot state is not at t = 0, but rather a later state namely t > 0. Actually, the Big Bang Theory does not speak about anything before t = Planck Time.

Heat is the movement of molecules. aka a form of CHANGE.
Molecules NOT molecule; ergo, there can be no heat in the "singular."
The Fool: <(XD)
AKA there was heat AFTER there was NO LONGER a singular. You said that the singularity was hot and you are in error in saying so.

Thus it can't even show the real beginning of even the what we perceive with physical senses.
Again, you are assuming that there is indeed a beginning or even a need for one.
The Fool: Okay??????????
So why are you making these BOLD assumptions? Why, when it's clear that not only does not have a beginning it doesn't even require one! Existence cannot have a beginning or end it can only be REGARDLESS of time.

Therefore God cannot be the Cause nor can there a beginning.
Yes, there is no beginning BUT God could be the cause of the beginning of time.
Revised for clarity:
Yes, there is no beginning to existence BUT God could be the cause of the beginning of time.

So God can't be the Creator of the universe.
But He can be the creator of time.
The Fool: ANd for the Finish.
If a miricle is the impossible, then any other explanation is more likley to be true and is therefore BETTER!. (Hume re-masterd by The Fool)
IF a miricle is the impossible; HOWEVER, a miracle can be the SEEMINGLY impossible!

The Fool.. On the Hill!

The Big-Boone!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 5:33:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 3:49:53 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Refutations and Replies Part 2 with fallacy counting

Fool and the Boone: on the beginning of the universe:

tBoonePickens: I'm guessing you mean beginning of the Universe...but between your spelling and your vacillation, who knows!

The Fool: failed POC and ad hoc fallacy. (do you really want to start the insult. I am asking you again. please be respectful) 1 hostility.

Mind you I mean Absolute Universe all things that exist, not just sense perception aspects. But what everything we may find out. in what every form it is. Gods, outside anything what is IS a part of the absolute universe. Mind you this is really the original philosopher's definition. I am reserving the possibility on some kind of futuristic understanding which I may proof me wrong. I am but a Fool you know. But according to what I know now, I can't conceive of it being otherwise.

1. Argument from sense perception:
P1 All experiences is within a frame work of consciousness/mind.
P2 and I am referring to inner and outer experiences.
P3 Physical perception is only one aspect of our overall consciousness.
C1 Since through this alone we could never conclude if its a full account of the universe because it covers a limited portion of possible existence.

tBoonePickens:: Well, I cannot help you in your failure to be able to conceive. I would suggest that the Universe does not require a beginning because existence is transcendental.

The Fool: transcendental is a Bold assumption fallacy plus you having another hostility in there. 2 Hostilities

tBoonePickens : If you believe "what IS is" then is there really a question of beginning? Answer: No.

The Fool: you have to believe to believe. That is no rational alternative.

The question to ask is, "what other possibilities are there" (to what IS is)? Well there is only one other possibility: "what IS NOT is" but that is a contradiction and so we are left with only one possibility.

The Fool: it's an argument you can you refute it or not?

Argument from sense perception:
tBoonePickens : P2 is a false dichotomy according to P1: remove all references to outer.

The Fool: Firstly this would still make the argument right. And it is what most people mean by outer experience its perfectly relavent. (non-sequitar fallacy)
Secondly there are different aspects of consciousnss, some we percieve as being inner and some as outer. Aka we percieve are physical consciousness as outer. Therefore either way its right. That is all it is. Scientist doesn't have supernatural powers. At least not he last time I check. Well make Hawkings does secretly.

tBoonePickens : No, according to P1 EVERYTHING is inner. There is NO ambiguity.

The Fool: A well, now you know the significance ot p2. LOL I will make it clearer next time. I don't think anybody else would miss that though.

tBoonePickens : P3 also contradicts P1: the physical has not been established within this framework.

The Fool: physical is based on sense perception.

tBoonePickens : So it is "sense perception of the physical," but not the "physical." Or if we remove your "word games" it's simply sense perception.

The Fool: That is what its based on. That is all we have. Now you are seeing the IRRATIONAL JUMP!! Congrates on your dicovery. Therefore Physcalism IS FALSE.

tBoonePickens : : Regardless, according to P1 the Universe IS the perceived Universe.

The Fool: I am sorry, do you know about the other rest of the universe. I am but a Fool about those things you see.

tBoonePickens : Strawman; it doesn't take supernatural powers to believe in Physicalism, on the contrary!

The Fool: A strawman is based on misrepresenting someone argument. In that you are making a Straw version of someone. RIGHT? I that is and education, difference. Please Stop.... Please its really Bad..

tBoonePickens : Obviously, C1 is a "Bold assumption fallacy" so that's why it does not follow!

The Fool: Consciousness and experience is pre-linguistical to even be a possible a Bold assumption. Awww did you get trick out of you mind?

Extra: We have found out that things such as radiation, magnetism and now possibly dark matter exist. There is reason to think we will discover more physical entities. We can never know if we have discovered all that exist. Therefore we could never know of the beginning of the universe.

tBoonePickens: 1) It has been established that the Universe does not require a beginning via "what IS is"

The Fool: You are right so why are you here? LoL so its settled. Q.E.D.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 7:07:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just for laughs! The Fool and the Boone on the beginning of the universe!
Extra: I will make this an argument of its own.

Argument from Progress:
P1. We have found out that things such as radiation, magnetism and now possibly dark matter exist.
P2. In so far as science is progressive there is reason to think we will discover more physical entities. (Entities based from physical perception)
C2 We can never know if we have discovered all that exist. Therefore we could never conclude the beginning of the Universe.

tBoonePickens: Sure, but that's like saying "we could never really know a square-circle". So what?

The Fool: <(XD) No its not. I didn't say anything about squares or circles. (Actual strawman argument)

tBoonePickens : 2) It does not follow that because we do not know everything that exists, that we cannot determine if it did have a beginning.

The Fool: <(XD) Nonsense, yes it does mean we have to know all that exist to claim when The universe became into existence. For we would always be missing a part of the universe. (a part of the necessary calculation) Thus we could never rationally conclude it. Aka some scientist are CRAZY! They really do think what they observe is all that there is.

More crazy coming up!.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 7:22:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just for laughs series: The Fool and the Boone on the beginning of the Universe.

2. Argument from recognition:
P1 Consciousness is only Recognition not necessary all of Reality. Recognition=/=Reality.
P2 what is IS! Aka everything has Reality.
P3 but recognize so far is not all of really.
C1 Thus we could never conclude by Recognition alone that we have covered all aspects of the universe to make rational claims about the beginning of it.
Q.E.D.

Boone: So then you are saying that P1 deals in fantasy? Please answer the question.

The Fool: No fantasy it of the imagination. One aspect of consciousness. Aka I could picture a ball in my mind, turning into a T-boone dancing around. That is imaginary. I can't make that happen in my physical perception. In my physical perception (outer sense) I must move my body to cause things to happen. I cannot do the mind over matter thing. Or at least I remain humble in saying I am a Fool to such powers.

Another problem solved by your most lovable and huggable Fool. XOXOXOXOX

On the hill.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 7:27:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 2:01:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:20:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
The "Big Bang" is an element, a component, of the "Big Bang Theory" which, if we want to be precise, can actually refer to a number of proposed theories currently being bandied about among theoretical scientists.

This element is represented by a mathematical singularity as a consequence of merging general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM). It serves two purposes: 1) a temporal reference point on which to base other events occurring in the early universe. That is, instead of saying that atoms formed X billions of years ago, we say it happened Y seconds after the Big Bang. The numbers from this perspective are more manageable; 2) the existence of a mathematical singularity indicates that our theories are incorrect.

This second part is the most important part. While, by the very nature of science we understand that our theories should always be treated as incomplete, the existence of the singularity as a result of the equations of general relativity shows us that they are incomplete in a rather more specific way, above and beyond a mere mental caveat that is necessarily included in all scientific theories.

The point being, of course, that though the "Big Bang" is part of our scientific models that we have artificially constructed with which to represent reality it is, most certainly not part of reality itself.

To speak of the Big Bang singularity as something that actually happened is premature at best and just plain wrong at worst. We need revise our theories to excise the mathematical absuridities that result from combining GR and QM, and there is no telling what new theories will replace them, or what they will say about the Universe. Granted, they will have to be consistent with what we already know, but in terms of the early universe, after which our current models break down, we can't say.

The Fool: Firstly to say things break down. Is not a rationall claim.

Then you don't understand what I'm talking about.

I at best means I don;t know.

At worst it means "I don't know." At best it means, "We may not know what happened before that time, but we do know we need to alter our models in order to find out."

There as my arguments show we could never claim that its the beginnning. So you are on my Teams. Hey partner!!

Claim what as the beginning? The Big Bang? You are still talking about it as some actual event that happened. Why?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 4:10:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 5:33:22 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:49:53 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Refutations and Replies Part 2 with fallacy counting

Fool and the Boone: on the beginning of the universe:
tBoonePickens: I'm guessing you mean beginning of the Universe...but between your spelling and your vacillation, who knows!

The Fool: failed POC and ad hoc fallacy. (do you really want to start the insult. I am asking you again. please be respectful) 1 hostility.
You had written "begging the universe" so that's why I said that. Anyways, don't be so sensitive.

Mind you I mean Absolute Universe all things that exist, not just sense perception aspects.
I think that we have ALWAYS agreed on this definition of Universe. Again, I have no problem with this definition.

But what everything we may find out. in what every form it is.
Don't understand what you mean here.

Gods, outside anything what is IS a part of the absolute universe.
Don't understand what you mean here.

Mind you this is really the original philosopher's definition. I am reserving the possibility on some kind of futuristic understanding which I may proof me wrong. I am but a Fool you know. But according to what I know now, I can't conceive of it being otherwise.
You cannot be proved wrong, because it is a definition/premise. The concept is NOT a contradiction, and so I fail to see how it can be "proven" wrong. We may find out that the Universe (ie all of existence) is bigger than we thought, but that doesn't affect this definition, as it does not speak to size.

1. Argument from sense perception:
P1 All experiences is within a frame work of consciousness/mind.
P2 and I am referring to inner and outer experiences.
P3 Physical perception is only one aspect of our overall consciousness.
C1 Since through this alone we could never conclude if its a full account of the universe because it covers a limited portion of possible existence.

tBoonePickens:: Well, I cannot help you in your failure to be able to conceive. I would suggest that the Universe does not require a beginning because existence is transcendental.
The Fool: transcendental is a Bold assumption fallacy plus you having another hostility in there. 2 Hostilities
I don't know what you mean by hostility; please elaborate. As far as a Bold Assumption goes, there is nothing "bold" or "assuming" about existence being the ONLY logically possible state of the Universe. I have explained this NUMEROUS times, and this WILL be the last time: existence is the only possibility because non-existence DOES not exist. Because this is SO, existence cannot have a beginning nor can it have an end.

The funny part is that you have agreed with this countless times.

tBoonePickens : If you believe "what IS is" then is there really a question of beginning? Answer: No.
The Fool: you have to believe to believe. That is no rational alternative.
Please stop playing semantics game. I will clarify: If you KNOW "what IS is" then there really ISN'T a question of beginning.

The question to ask is, "what other possibilities are there" (to what IS is)? Well there is only one other possibility: "what IS NOT is" but that is a contradiction and so we are left with only one possibility.
The Fool: it's an argument you can you refute it or not?
1) Please address what I wrote like I address what you write.

2) I am speaking about a question. A question is NOT an argument, therefore I have no idea what you are talking about in reference to argument.

3) If you are referring to P1, P2, P3, & C1 as the "argument", I HAVE addressed and refuted MANY parts of it and you have NOT properly dealt with said refutations.

4) I suggest for you to only quote me on what you will be responding to and not any previous material. Just saying.

Argument from sense perception:
tBoonePickens : P2 is a false dichotomy according to P1: remove all references to outer.
The Fool: Firstly this would still make the argument right.
1) Again, you are not responding to my points.
2) I said that if the "outer/inner distinction is not necessary" as YOU claimed, then remove it. You have not, therefore it IS necessary.

And it is what most people mean by outer experience its perfectly relavent. (non-sequitar fallacy)
3) Argumentum ad populum.

Secondly there are different aspects of consciousnss, some we percieve as being inner and some as outer. Aka we percieve are physical consciousness as outer. Therefore either way its right. That is all it is. Scientist doesn't have supernatural powers. At least not he last time I check. Well make Hawkings does secretly.

tBoonePickens : No, according to P1 EVERYTHING is inner. There is NO ambiguity.

The Fool: A well, now you know the significance ot p2. LOL I will make it clearer next time. I don't think anybody else would miss that though.
Yes, the significance is that it contradicts P1!

tBoonePickens : P3 also contradicts P1: the physical has not been established within this framework.
The Fool: physical is based on sense perception.
tBoonePickens : So it is "sense perception of the physical," but not the "physical." Or if we remove your "word games" it's simply sense perception.
The Fool: That is what its based on. That is all we have. Now you are seeing the IRRATIONAL JUMP!! Congrates on your dicovery. Therefore Physcalism IS FALSE.
Now you are seeing how truly limited is your denial of physicalism!

tBoonePickens : : Regardless, according to P1 the Universe IS the perceived Universe.
The Fool: I am sorry, do you know about the other rest of the universe. I am but a Fool about those things you see.
Indeed you are a Fool! The point is that the physical does exist outside the mind and its perceptions. Embrace physicalism!

tBoonePickens : Strawman; it doesn't take supernatural powers to believe in Physicalism, on the contrary!
The Fool: A strawman is based on misrepresenting someone argument. In that you are making a Straw version of someone. RIGHT? I that is and education, difference.
Please Stop.... Please its really Bad.
Even a first grade education can figure out that someone implying that "it takes supernatural powers to believe in Physicalism" is a strawman. Try again.

tBoonePickens : Obviously, C1 is a "Bold assumption fallacy" so that's why it does not follow!
The Fool: Consciousness and experience is pre-linguistical to even be a possible a Bold assumption. Awww did you get trick out of you mind?
1) Again, you are NOT addressing my point.
2) In C1, you are basically saying that in order to figure out if the Universe had a beginning you necessarily need to know ALL aspects of the Universe. That my Foolish friend is the EPITOME of a bold assumption! Boooom!

Extra: We have found out that things such as radiation, magnetism and now possibly dark matter exist. There is reason to think we will discover more physical entities. We can never know if we have discovered all that exist. Therefore we could never know of the beginning of the universe.
tBoonePickens: 1) It has been established that the Universe does not require a beginning via "what IS is"
The Fool: You are right so why are you here? LoL so its settled. Q.E.D.
You are claiming that in order to know if the Universe had a beginning or not is impossible because we would need to know everything. Then you turn around and agree with me that it's settled and that we actually know it does not have beginning. So you are admiring defeat! I accept your graceful defeat!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 4:39:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 7:07:42 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Just for laughs! The Fool and the Boone on the beginning of the universe!
Extra: I will make this an argument of its own.

Argument from Progress:
P1. We have found out that things such as radiation, magnetism and now possibly dark matter exist.
P2. In so far as science is progressive there is reason to think we will discover more physical entities. (Entities based from physical perception)
C2 We can never know if we have discovered all that exist. Therefore we could never conclude the beginning of the Universe.
Again, you are claiming that in order to know whether or not the Universe had a beginning, we need to know everything. That is the prime example of a bold assertion!

tBoonePickens: Sure, but that's like saying "we could never really know a square-circle". So what?
The Fool: <(XD) No its not. I didn't say anything about squares or circles. (Actual strawman argument)
But you did: you said it is impossible to know everything; contradictions are impossible things ergo...

tBoonePickens : 2) It does not follow that because we do not know everything that exists, that we cannot determine if it did have a beginning.
The Fool: <(XD) Nonsense, yes it does mean we have to know all that exist to claim when The universe became into existence. For we would always be missing a part of the universe. (a part of the necessary calculation) Thus we could never rationally conclude it. Aka some scientist are CRAZY! They really do think what they observe is all that there is.
No we don't because it's been established that things DO NOT come into existence; they are merely transformations that exist irrespective of all things!

A) Existence is the default state of the Universe.
B) As such, it has no start or finish.
C) I know A & B even though I do not know everything!

Ergo, it is not necessary to know everything in order to know that the Universe did not have a beginning! Booooom!

More crazy coming up!.
Indeed!

Just for laughs series: The Fool and the Boone on the beginning of the Universe.

2. Argument from recognition:
P1 Consciousness is only Recognition not necessary all of Reality. Recognition=/=Reality.
P2 what is IS! Aka everything has Reality.
P3 but recognize so far is not all of really.
C1 Thus we could never conclude by Recognition alone that we have covered all aspects of the universe to make rational claims about the beginning of it.
Q.E.D.

Boone: So then you are saying that P1 deals in fantasy? Please answer the question.
The Fool: No fantasy it of the imagination.
Ah yes, when all else fails play the word games!

One aspect of consciousness. Aka I could picture a ball in my mind, turning into a T-boone dancing around. That is imaginary.
So you are saying P1 deals STRICTLY with the imagination?

I can't make that happen in my physical perception.
Perception is perception; we have NOT established the physical, ONLY the perceived.

In my physical perception (outer sense) I must move my body to cause things to happen.
Again, there is no outer/inner because it's all in the mind. So I wonder how it is one could possibly create a distinction between outer & inner since they are both perceptions? Hmmm.

I cannot do the mind over matter thing.
Why not, it's all perception, no? Unless there IS something outside after all! So you are coming to the light! You are seeing the troubles with denying the physical!

Or at least I remain humble in saying I am a Fool to such powers.
No, the Fools powers are much more foolish: they try and deny physicalism but fail!

Another problem solved by your most lovable and huggable Fool. XOXOXOXOX

On the hill.
Well, you've come quite a long way into accepting the physical. How do you like my approach to teaching? It's quite effective!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 11:14:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Refutations and Replies Part 2 with fallacy counting

1. Argument from sense perception: v 1.1
P1 All experiences are within a frame work of consciousness/mind.
P2 I am also referring to inner(as all other sensations) and outer experiences(as physical/sense perception)
P3 Physical perception is only one aspect of our overall consciousness.
P4 Thus we could never from physical perception alone account for the beginning of the universe since we cannot account for all of it.

Mind you I mean Absolute Universe all things that exist, not just sense perception aspects. But what everything we may find out in the future, or things we may never learn about if they exist they are apart of the absolute universe. Mind you this is really the original philosopher's definition. I am reserving the possibility on some kind of futuristic understanding which I may proof me wrong. I am but a Fool you know. But according to what I know now, I can't conceive of it being otherwise. Whether it be Gods, or an outside anything what is IS a part of the Absolute universe.

tBoonePickens:I think that we have ALWAYS agreed on this definition of Universe. Again, I have no problem with this definition.

The Fool: yeah it's never been part of The arguments so I don't even know why you are talking about it in the first please. Can you please let me know?

tBoonePickens: Don't understand what you mean here.
The Fool: Dido. I have no idea why you are refuting you self?

tBoonePickens: You cannot be proved wrong, because it is a definition/premise. The concept is NOT a contradiction, and so I fail to see how it can be "proven" wrong. We may find out that the Universe (ie all of existence) is bigger than we thought, but that doesn't affect this definition, as it does not speak to size.

The Fool: As for finding out larger universe I covered that already.(Hedherring fallacy) The definition is not a part of the Four independent argument. Money people claim that object recognized though sense perception is all that exist. I thought you did too. Remember that also destroys a possible conclusive doctrine of physicalism. (so many fallacies here to bother mentioning.)I may be wrong but I am starting to think you don't know the difference between T and V and complex arguments are.

tBoonePickens:I don't know what you mean by hostility; please elaborate.

The Fool: Hostility is when you avoid giving an and answer with the intention. But I am the Fool. Its more of a matter of wasting time. Aka avoiding refutation.

tBoonePickens:: As far as a Bold Assumption goes, there is nothing "bold" or "assuming" about existence being the ONLY logically possible state of the Universe. I have explained this NUMEROUS times, and this WILL be the last time: existence is the only possibility because non-existence DOES not exist. Because this is SO, existence cannot have a beginning nor can it have an end.
The funny part is that you have agreed with this countless times.

The Fool: It is very funny to see someone arguing with his self. This is not the first time. You did this last time too. Transcended means to go beyond but you don't know the Beyond so you can't claim it.

tBoonePickens : If you believe "what IS is" then is there really a question of beginning? Answer: No.

The Fool: you have to believe to believe. That is no rational alternative.

tBoonePickens : Please stop playing semantics game. I will clarify: If you KNOW "what IS is" then there really ISN'T a question of beginning.

The Fool: yes you are discovering that you lost when you started. It wasn't meant for someone to agree. Hey I told you Hating is bad new bears. Lol. (Strawman fallacy on semantic games.)

tBoonePickens : The question to ask is, "what other possibilities are there" (to what IS is)? Well there is only one other possibility: "what IS NOT is" but that is a contradiction and so we are left with only one possibility.

continues.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 11:37:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: it's an argument you can you refute it or not?

tBoonePickens : 1) Please address what I wrote like I address what you write.

The Fool: I give arguments. You give ambiguous one liners with no reference to anything. Lol (Straw man fallacy)

tBoonePickens : 2) I am speaking about a question. A question is NOT an argument, therefore I have no idea what you are talking about in reference to argument.

The Fool: A completely irrational question.

tBoonePickens : 3) If you are referring to P1, P2, P3, & C1 as the "argument", I HAVE addressed and refuted MANY parts of it and you have NOT properly dealt with said refutations.

The Fool: you haven't given demonstration. You are trying to tell me I don't mean what I mean. That is Crazy town. Its just one forum up!.

tBoonePickens : 4) I suggest for you to only quote me on what you will be responding to and not any previous material. Just saying.

The Fool: All you need is one demonstration. Just copy and paste the ARGUMENT that you gave.. (4 hostilities.)

tBoonePickens : P2 is a false dichotomy according to P1: remove all references to outer.
The Fool: When you demonstrate it I will agree(bold assumption fallacy)
tBoonePickens:Again, you are not responding to my points.

The Fool: Demonstration ?? (Bold assertion fallacy)
And it is what most people mean by outer experience its perfectly relavent. (Non-sequitar fallacy)

tBoonePickens :3) Argumentum ad populum.

The Fool: a meaning of a word is not an adherence to popularity. That will work one Forum up..lol. It will feel more like home. You stil need to demonstrate..

tBoonePickens : Yes, the significance is that it contradicts P1

The Fool: Demonstration ?? (Bold assertion fallacy)

tBoonePickens : P3 also contradicts P1: the physical has not been established within this framework

The Fool: Demonstration????(bold assumption fallacy)

tBoonePickens : So it is "sense perception of the physical," but not the "physical." Or if we remove your "word games" it's simply sense perception.

The Fool: That is what its based on. That is all we have. Now you are seeing the IRRATIONAL JUMP!! Congrates on your dicovery. Therefore Physcalism IS FALSE.

tBoonePickens : Now you are seeing how truly limited is your denial of physicalism!
The Fool: Demonstration??? (bold assumption fallacy)

tBoonePickens : : Regardless, according to P1 the Universe IS the perceived Universe.

The Fool: I am sorry, do you know about the other rest of the universe. I am but a Fool about those things you see.

tBoonePickens : Indeed you are a Fool!

The Fool: You are just figuring that out now..<(8J)

tBoonePickens : The point is that the physical does exist outside the mind and its perceptions. Embrace physicalism!
The Fool: Good Demonstrate and related to the argument??? (bold assumption fallacy) (5 H)

tBoonePickens : Strawman; it doesn't take supernatural powers to believe in Physicalism, on the contrary!

The Fool: A strawman is based on misrepresenting someone argument. In that you are making a Straw version of someone. RIGHT? I that is and education, difference.

tBoonePickensEven a first grade education can figure out that someone implying that "it takes supernatural powers to believe in Physicalism" is a strawman. Try again.

The Fool: Well you are a grown man now I don;t think they would let you in. (bold assumption fallacy) 6H

tBoonePickens : Obviously, C1 is a "Bold assumption fallacy" so that's why it does not follow!

The Fool: Consciousness and experience is pre-linguistical to even be a possible a Bold assumption.

tBoonePickens Again, you are NOT addressing my point.

The Fool: There has been no arguments given yet?? (bold assumption fallacy)
2) In C1, you are basically saying that in order to figure out if the Universe had a beginning you necessarily need to know ALL aspects of the Universe. That my Foolish friend is the EPITOME of a bold assumption! Boooom!

The Fool: you need to know what all the universe consisted of to make that calculation. Or it will not account for the entire universe. And that not what I am saying. (Strawman fallacy)) I thought you had 40 years of fun being T-boone. Copying is the best form of flattery, and I am flattered you like my wit! But that means being original. Maybe when you are even older...maybe.

tBoonePickens :You are claiming that in order to know if the Universe had a beginning or not is impossible because we would need to know everything.

The Fool: Yeah, you tried the telling me my own claim routine the last time you lost. You are better of asking me what I am claiming. LOL.

tBoonePickens: Then you turn around and agree with me that it's settled and that we actually know it does not have beginning. So you are admiring defeat! I accept your graceful defeat!

The Fool: Turning around??? lol. You tried this last time remember. You have been arguing out of hate rage that you don't' even know what you are arguing. It says in the heading about the beginning of the universe. Next!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 12:02:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Boone you have to start giving argument/demonstration.
Just for laughs! The Fool and the Boone on the beginning of the universe!

Argument from Progress:
P1. We have found out that things such as radiation, magnetism and now possibly dark matter exist.
P2. In so far as science is progressive there is reason to think we will discover more physical entities. (Entities based from physical perception)
C2 We can never know if we have discovered all that exist. Therefore we could never conclude the beginning of the Universe.
In other words:

The Fool: <(XD) Nonsense, yes it does mean we have to know all that exist to claim when
P1 The universe is all that exist.
P2 science is based of sense percpection and mathmetics/logic (used to be)
P3 We can't conclude that we know all that exist.
C3 therefore any calculation concerngint eh beginning would be inconclusive.

Aka some scientist are CRAZY! They really do think what they observe is all that there is.

"Boone Logic"

A)Existence is the default state of the Universe.
The Fool: other argument.
B)As such, it has no start or finish.
The Fool: I agree other argument though. Its V type.
C) I know A & B even though I do not know everything!
The Fool: That is great for all that exist. But that is not what we are disagreement.
Ergo, it is not necessary to know everything in order to know that the Universe did not have a beginning! Booooom!<(XD)

The Fool: Please take a logic class.. First.

If the universe is a set [a,b,c,d)
And I only know a, and b. I can never conclude that universe began when a, and b, could now longer be understood to exist. Its at most only recognized.. Because C, and D, still exist. Thus I could never conclude that universe exist without know all that exist.

More crazy coming up! indeed!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 12:14:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just for laughs! The Fool and the Boone on the beginning of the universe!

The Fool: Boone you have to start giving arguments/demonstrations.

Argument from Progress:
P1. We have found out that things such as radiation, magnetism and now possibly dark matter exist.
P2. In so far as science is progressive there is reason to think we will discover more physical entities. (Entities based from physical perception)
C2 We can never know if we have discovered all that exist. Therefore we could never conclude the beginning of the Universe.

The argument works without C1 but lets give Boone his fix. ]

P1 The universe is all that exist.
P2 science is based of sense percpection and mathmetics/logic (used to be)
P3 We can't conclude that we know all that exist.
C3 therefore any calculation concerning the beginning would be inconclusive.

Aka some scientist are CRAZY! They really do think what they observe is all that there is.


"Boone Logic"
A)Existence is the default state of the Universe.

The Fool: other argument.

B)As such, it has no start or finish.

The Fool: I agree other argument though. Its V type.

C) I know A & B even though I do not know everything!

The Fool: That is great for all that exist. But that is not what we are disagreement. Nothing else follows from it.

Ergo, it is not necessary to know everything in order to know that the Universe did not have a beginning! Booooom!<(XD) (ahh crazy. see.)

The Fool: I am arguing about it not having a beginning. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... I am glad to see an open display of agreement. Please take a logic class.

Just for laughs!!
If the universe is a set [a,b,c,d)
And I only know a, and b. I can never conclude that universe began when a, and b, could now longer be understood to exist. Its at most only recognized.. Because C, and D, still exist. Thus I could never conclude that universe exist without know all that exist.

More crazy coming up! indeed!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 12:38:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 7:27:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/24/2012 2:01:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:20:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
The "Big Bang" is an element, a component, of the "Big Bang Theory" which, if we want to be precise, can actually refer to a number of proposed theories currently being bandied about among theoretical scientists.

This element is represented by a mathematical singularity as a consequence of merging general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM). It serves two purposes: 1) a temporal reference point on which to base other events occurring in the early universe. That is, instead of saying that atoms formed X billions of years ago, we say it happened Y seconds after the Big Bang. The numbers from this perspective are more manageable; 2) the existence of a mathematical singularity indicates that our theories are incorrect.

This second part is the most important part. While, by the very nature of science we understand that our theories should always be treated as incomplete, the existence of the singularity as a result of the equations of general relativity shows us that they are incomplete in a rather more specific way, above and beyond a mere mental caveat that is necessarily included in all scientific theories.

The point being, of course, that though the "Big Bang" is part of our scientific models that we have artificially constructed with which to represent reality it is, most certainly not part of reality itself.

To speak of the Big Bang singularity as something that actually happened is premature at best and just plain wrong at worst. We need revise our theories to excise the mathematical absuridities that result from combining GR and QM, and there is no telling what new theories will replace them, or what they will say about the Universe. Granted, they will have to be consistent with what we already know, but in terms of the early universe, after which our current models break down, we can't say.

\ The Fool: Firstly to say things break down. I am saying to just say our logic and understanding break down. Is an irrational claim by scientist. It an excuse answer for we don't know what the fvck happens at that point. That also destroys their credibility to saying we know its starts from ??????. Its a way of getting around saying Sh!T just happened.

Then you don't understand what I'm talking about.

I at best means I don;t know.

At worst it means "I don't know." At best it means, "We may not know what happened before that time, but we do know we need to alter our models in order to find out."

There as my arguments show we could never claim that its the beginnning. So you are on my Teams. Hey partner!!

Claim what as the beginning? The Big Bang? You are still talking about it as some actual event that happened. Why?

The Fool: No Drafter man I am claiming against it. I am saying we can never actually know when the universe began. I am saying scientist are making claims they can't possible know. I gave 4 argument why they can never know it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 12:40:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 12:14:11 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Just for laughs! The Fool and the Boone on the beginning of the universe!

The Fool: Boone you have to start giving arguments/demonstrations.

Argument from Progress:
P1. We have found out that things such as radiation, magnetism and now possibly dark matter exist.
P2. In so far as science is progressive there is reason to think we will discover more physical entities. (Entities based from physical perception)
C2 We can never know if we have discovered all that exist. Therefore we could never conclude the beginning of the Universe.

The argument works without C1 but lets give Boone his fix. ]

P1 The universe is all that exist.
P2 science is based of sense percpection and mathmetics/logic (used to be)
P3 We can't conclude that we know all that exist.
C3 therefore any calculation concerning the beginning would be inconclusive.

Aka some scientist are CRAZY! They really do think what they observe is all that there is.


"Boone Logic"
A)Existence is the default state of the Universe.

The Fool: other argument.

B)As such, it has no start or finish.

The Fool: I agree other argument though. Its V type.

C) I know A & B even though I do not know everything!

The Fool: That is great for all that exist. But that is not what we are disagreement. Nothing else follows from it.

Ergo, it is not necessary to know everything in order to know that the Universe did not have a beginning! Booooom!<(XD) (ahh crazy. see.)

The Fool: I am arguing about it not having a beginning. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... I am glad to see an open display of agreement. Please take a logic class.

Just for laughs!!
If the universe is a set [a,b,c,d)
And I only know a, and b. I can never conclude that universe began when a, and b, could now longer be understood to exist. Its at most only recognized.. Because C, and D, still exist.

Edit.
Thus I could never conclude that universe became to exist without know all that exist.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 7:21:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 12:38:45 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 7:27:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/24/2012 2:01:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:20:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
The "Big Bang" is an element, a component, of the "Big Bang Theory" which, if we want to be precise, can actually refer to a number of proposed theories currently being bandied about among theoretical scientists.

This element is represented by a mathematical singularity as a consequence of merging general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM). It serves two purposes: 1) a temporal reference point on which to base other events occurring in the early universe. That is, instead of saying that atoms formed X billions of years ago, we say it happened Y seconds after the Big Bang. The numbers from this perspective are more manageable; 2) the existence of a mathematical singularity indicates that our theories are incorrect.

This second part is the most important part. While, by the very nature of science we understand that our theories should always be treated as incomplete, the existence of the singularity as a result of the equations of general relativity shows us that they are incomplete in a rather more specific way, above and beyond a mere mental caveat that is necessarily included in all scientific theories.

The point being, of course, that though the "Big Bang" is part of our scientific models that we have artificially constructed with which to represent reality it is, most certainly not part of reality itself.

To speak of the Big Bang singularity as something that actually happened is premature at best and just plain wrong at worst. We need revise our theories to excise the mathematical absuridities that result from combining GR and QM, and there is no telling what new theories will replace them, or what they will say about the Universe. Granted, they will have to be consistent with what we already know, but in terms of the early universe, after which our current models break down, we can't say.

\ The Fool: Firstly to say things break down. I am saying to just say our logic and understanding break down. Is an irrational claim by scientist. It an excuse answer for we don't know what the fvck happens at that point. That also destroys their credibility to saying we know its starts from ??????. Its a way of getting around saying Sh!T just happened.

Then you don't understand what I'm talking about.

I at best means I don;t know.

At worst it means "I don't know." At best it means, "We may not know what happened before that time, but we do know we need to alter our models in order to find out."

There as my arguments show we could never claim that its the beginnning. So you are on my Teams. Hey partner!!

Claim what as the beginning? The Big Bang? You are still talking about it as some actual event that happened. Why?

The Fool: No Drafter man I am claiming against it. I am saying we can never actually know when the universe began.

You keep speaking as if the universe did have a beginning. It isn't an issue of knowing when it began, we still have to answer the question of if it began.

I am saying scientist are making claims they can't possible know. I gave 4 argument why they can never know it.

And I explained why they aren't, in fact, claiming to know it. You're arguing against nothingness.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 2:21:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 7:21:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/26/2012 12:38:45 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 7:27:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/24/2012 2:01:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:20:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
The "Big Bang" is an element, a component, of the "Big Bang Theory" which, if we want to be precise, can actually refer to a number of proposed theories currently being bandied about among theoretical scientists.

This element is represented by a mathematical singularity as a consequence of merging general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM). It serves two purposes: 1) a temporal reference point on which to base other events occurring in the early universe. That is, instead of saying that atoms formed X billions of years ago, we say it happened Y seconds after the Big Bang. The numbers from this perspective are more manageable; 2) the existence of a mathematical singularity indicates that our theories are incorrect.

This second part is the most important part. While, by the very nature of science we understand that our theories should always be treated as incomplete, the existence of the singularity as a result of the equations of general relativity shows us that they are incomplete in a rather more specific way, above and beyond a mere mental caveat that is necessarily included in all scientific theories.

The point being, of course, that though the "Big Bang" is part of our scientific models that we have artificially constructed with which to represent reality it is, most certainly not part of reality itself.

To speak of the Big Bang singularity as something that actually happened is premature at best and just plain wrong at worst. We need revise our theories to excise the mathematical absuridities that result from combining GR and QM, and there is no telling what new theories will replace them, or what they will say about the Universe. Granted, they will have to be consistent with what we already know, but in terms of the early universe, after which our current models break down, we can't say.

\ The Fool: Firstly to say things break down. I am saying to just say our logic and understanding break down. Is an irrational claim by scientist. It an excuse answer for we don't know what the fvck happens at that point. That also destroys their credibility to saying we know its starts from ??????. Its a way of getting around saying Sh!T just happened.

Then you don't understand what I'm talking about.

I at best means I don;t know.

At worst it means "I don't know." At best it means, "We may not know what happened before that time, but we do know we need to alter our models in order to find out."

There as my arguments show we could never claim that its the beginnning. So you are on my Teams. Hey partner!!

Claim what as the beginning? The Big Bang? You are still talking about it as some actual event that happened. Why?

The Fool: No Drafter man I am claiming against it. I am saying we can never actually know when the universe began.

You keep speaking as if the universe did have a beginning. It isn't an issue of knowing when it began, we still have to answer the question of if it began.

I am saying scientist are making claims they can't possible know. I gave 4 argument why they can never know it.

And I explained why they aren't, in fact, claiming to know it. You're arguing against nothingness.

The Fool: you came to me! not the other way around.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 2:22:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First Line

The Fool: I am pretty skeptical that science especially the methods now could never never find out the beginning of the universe.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:03:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 11:14:49 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Refutations and Replies Part 2 with fallacy counting

1. Argument from sense perception: v 1.1
P1 All experiences are within a frame work of consciousness/mind.
P2 I am also referring to inner(as all other sensations) and outer experiences(as physical/sense perception)
P3 Physical perception is only one aspect of our overall consciousness.
P4 Thus we could never from physical perception alone account for the beginning of the universe since we cannot account for all of it.

Mind you I mean Absolute Universe all things that exist, not just sense perception aspects. But what everything we may find out in the future, or things we may never learn about if they exist they are apart of the absolute universe. Mind you this is really the original philosopher's definition. I am reserving the possibility on some kind of futuristic understanding which I may proof me wrong. I am but a Fool you know. But according to what I know now, I can't conceive of it being otherwise. Whether it be Gods, or an outside anything what is IS a part of the Absolute universe.

tBoonePickens:I think that we have ALWAYS agreed on this definition of Universe. Again, I have no problem with this definition.
The Fool: yeah it's never been part of The arguments so I don't even know why you are talking about it in the first please. Can you please let me know?
BECAUSE YOU KEEP QUOTING IT! WTF did you quote it above if you don't want me to respond to it and you say "it's never been part of The arguments"? Sheer idiocy. Then you quote me saying "Don't understand what you mean here" and LEAVE OUT the quote that preceded it SHOWING what it is that I don't understand! So you put in irrelevant quotes and leave out relevant quotes! Indeed you are a Fool.

tBoonePickens: Don't understand what you mean here.
The Fool: Dido. I have no idea why you are refuting you self?
Now you childishly respond that I am refuting myself for telling you that I don't understand what you wrote. Well, if you wanted hostility, you got it, pal!

Fool Said: But what everything we may find out. in what every form it is.
T-Boone said: Don't understand what you mean here.
So explain it.

Fool Said: Gods, outside anything what is IS a part of the absolute universe.
T-Boone said: Don't understand what you mean here.
So explain it.

tBoonePickens: You cannot be proved wrong, because it is a definition/premise. The concept is NOT a contradiction, and so I fail to see how it can be "proven" wrong. We may find out that the Universe (ie all of existence) is bigger than we thought, but that doesn't affect this definition, as it does not speak to size.
The Fool: As for finding out larger universe I covered that already.(Hedherring fallacy)
Where? I haven't seen it.

The definition is not a part of the Four independent argument.
1) That's irrelevant as it DOES reference Universe as so SOME definition MUST be used.
2) You DID post the definition BUT then claimed that it wasn't part of the argument.
3) You are extremely incoherent point.
4) Please post the definition of Universe that is used in the argument.

Money people claim that object recognized though sense perception is all that exist. I thought you did too.
1) Many not money.
2) That would make these people wrong.
3) You thought wrong.

Remember that also destroys a possible conclusive doctrine of physicalism. (so many fallacies here to bother mentioning.)
Yes, this is why I reject it and showed you how you cannot make claims to OUTSIDE if only reality is in the mind.

I may be wrong but I am starting to think you don't know the difference between T and V and complex arguments are.
Never mind T & V & complex, you cannot even string together coherent statements!

tBoonePickens:I don't know what you mean by hostility; please elaborate.
The Fool: Hostility is when you avoid giving an and answer with the intention. But I am the Fool. Its more of a matter of wasting time. Aka avoiding refutation.
The only one being evasive is yourself, as I have demonstrated many times. You write down nonsense and then expect people to respond to it. So, out of politeness, I ask you to elaborate and you respond with this rubbish?
1) GFY
2) I will no longer be polite regarding your broken English.

tBoonePickens:: As far as a Bold Assumption goes, there is nothing "bold" or "assuming" about existence being the ONLY logically possible state of the Universe. I have explained this NUMEROUS times, and this WILL be the last time: existence is the only possibility because non-existence DOES not exist. Because this is SO, existence cannot have a beginning nor can it have an end.
The funny part is that you have agreed with this countless times.
The Fool: It is very funny to see someone arguing with his self. This is not the first time. You did this last time too. Transcended means to go beyond but you don't know the Beyond so you can't claim it.
Again with your semantics. Please show me where the word "transcend" appears in the bold text above? Answer: it doesn't, however it does seem that YOU are arguing with yourself.

tBoonePickens : If you believe "what IS is" then is there really a question of beginning? Answer: No.
The Fool: you have to believe to believe. That is no rational alternative.
More semantics; funny to see you on the ropes!

Restated: If "what IS is" then is there really a question of beginning? Answer: No.
Boooom!

The Fool: yes you are discovering that you lost when you started. It wasn't meant for someone to agree. Hey I told you Hating is bad new bears. Lol. (Strawman fallacy on semantic games.)
Lol! It's rope-a-dope time! And you've been knocked out! I accept your concession!

tBoonePickens : The question to ask is, "what other possibilities are there" (to what IS is)? Well there is only one other possibility: "what IS NOT is" but that is a contradiction and so we are left with only one possibility.
The Fool: it's an argument you can you refute it or not?
Please use proper English.

tBoonePickens : 1) Please address what I wrote like I address what you write.
The Fool: I give arguments. You give ambiguous one liners with no reference to anything. Lol (Straw man fallacy)
Stay on course and stop deviating; it is a sign of a weak argument.

tBoonePickens : 2) I am speaking about a question. A question is NOT an argument, therefore I have no idea what you are talking about in reference to argument.
The Fool: A completely irrational question.
Then SAY that and SHOW how it is irrational instead of deviating in an attempt to obfuscate. As usual, you also left out said question in an effort to further cloud things.

tBoonePickens : 3) If you are referring to P1, P2, P3, & C1 as the "argument", I HAVE addressed and refuted MANY parts of it and you have NOT properly dealt with said refutations.
The Fool: you haven't given demonstration. You are trying to tell me I don't mean what I mean. That is Crazy town. Its just one forum up!.
This is false; what I said was that you cannot make claims to outside the mind if reality resides within the mind.

tBoonePickens : 4) I suggest for you to only quote me on what you will be responding to and not any previous material. Just saying.
The Fool: All you need is one demonstration. Just copy and paste the ARGUMENT that you gave.. (4 hostilities.)
More attempts to obfuscate and pretend that you don't know what I mean. Clearly you have a weak argument.

(conitnued)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:26:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 11:14:49 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

tBoonePickens : P2 is a false dichotomy according to P1: remove all references to outer.
The Fool: When you demonstrate it I will agree(bold assumption fallacy)
I did demonstrated but still you pretend to not understand. Regardless, you claimed that it made no difference and yet here we are and you have not removed the reference. More weakness on your end.

tBoonePickens:Again, you are not responding to my points.
The Fool: Demonstration ?? (Bold assertion fallacy)
I have, multiple times. It is clearly in your constant diversions, etc.

And it is what most people mean by outer experience its perfectly relavent. (Non-sequitar fallacy)
tBoonePickens :3) Argumentum ad populum.
The Fool: a meaning of a word is not an adherence to popularity.
Then you should not have adhered to it! Point remains.

tBoonePickens : Yes, the significance is that it contradicts P1
The Fool: Demonstration ?? (Bold assertion fallacy)
See previous posts.

tBoonePickens : P3 also contradicts P1: the physical has not been established within this framework
The Fool: Demonstration????(bold assumption fallacy)
You need to demonstrate that the physical has indeed been established; you have not. Point remains.

tBoonePickens : So it is "sense perception of the physical," but not the "physical." Or if we remove your "word games" it's simply sense perception.
The Fool: That is what its based on. That is all we have.
If it is all we have then you need not add things we don't have. Point remains.

Now you are seeing the IRRATIONAL JUMP!!
I have always seen it, that is, YOUR irrational jump!

tBoonePickens : Now you are seeing how truly limited is your denial of physicalism!
The Fool: Demonstration??? (bold assumption fallacy)
See above.

tBoonePickens : : Regardless, according to P1 the Universe IS the perceived Universe.
The Fool: I am sorry, do you know about the other rest of the universe. I am but a Fool about those things you see.
What other rest? You cannot make claims to that from within your framework.

tBoonePickens : Indeed you are a Fool!
The Fool: You are just figuring that out now..<(8J)
Even more foolish than I thought.

tBoonePickens : The point is that the physical does exist outside the mind and its perceptions. Embrace physicalism!
The Fool: Good Demonstrate and related to the argument??? (bold assumption fallacy) (5 H)
No need to so here; you have enough work to do to clean up your incoherent mess!

tBoonePickensEven a first grade education can figure out that someone implying that "it takes supernatural powers to believe in Physicalism" is a strawman. Try again.
The Fool: Well you are a grown man now I don;t think they would let you in. (bold assumption fallacy) 6H
Why yes it is a bold assumption to assume that they would not let me in! Regardless, the point still stands.

tBoonePickens : Obviously, C1 is a "Bold assumption fallacy" so that's why it does not follow!
The Fool: Consciousness and experience is pre-linguistical to even be a possible a Bold assumption.
tBoonePickens Again, you are NOT addressing my point.
The Fool: There has been no arguments given yet?? (bold assumption fallacy)
Wrong, the arguments are given above in bold. Again you attempt to change direction and not deal with the issue at hand. Point still stands.

2) In C1, you are basically saying that in order to figure out if the Universe had a beginning you necessarily need to know ALL aspects of the Universe. That my Foolish friend is the EPITOME of a bold assumption! Boooom!
The Fool: you need to know what all the universe consisted of to make that calculation. Or it will not account for the entire universe.
NOT necessarily.

And that not what I am saying. (Strawman fallacy)) I thought you had 40 years of fun being T-boone. Copying is the best form of flattery, and I am flattered you like my wit! But that means being original. Maybe when you are even older...maybe.
Point still stands.

tBoonePickens: Then you turn around and agree with me that it's settled and that we actually know it does not have beginning. So you are admiring defeat! I accept your graceful defeat!
The Fool: Turning around??? lol. You tried this last time remember. You have been arguing out of hate rage that you don't' even know what you are arguing. It says in the heading about the beginning of the universe. Next!
You've already admitted defeat twice, no need to go back on your word!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 7:18:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 11:03:29 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:14:49 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Refutations and Replies Part 2 with fallacy counting

1. Argument from sense perception: v 1.1
P1 All experiences are within a frame work of consciousness/mind.
P2 I am also referring to inner(as all other sensations) and outer experiences(as physical/sense perception)
P3 Physical perception is only one aspect of our overall consciousness.
P4 Thus we could never from physical perception alone account for the beginning of the universe since we cannot account for all of it.

Mind you I mean Absolute Universe all things that exist, not just sense perception aspects. But what everything we may find out in the future, or things we may never learn about if they exist they are apart of the absolute universe. Mind you this is really the original philosopher's definition. I am reserving the possibility on some kind of futuristic understanding which I may proof me wrong. I am but a Fool you know. But according to what I know now, I can't conceive of it being otherwise. Whether it be Gods, or an outside anything what is IS a part of the Absolute universe.

tBoonePickens:I think that we have ALWAYS agreed on this definition of Universe. Again, I have no problem with this definition.

The Fool: yeah it's never been part of The arguments so I don't even know why you are talking about it in the first please. Can you please let me know?

tBoonePickens : BECAUSE YOU KEEP QUOTING IT! WTF did you quote it above if you don't want me to respond to it and you say "it's never been part of The arguments"?

tBoonePickens I keep reorganizing everything because you keep breaking it apart to I put it back together if you havent notice. You are attacking things you agree with. Thats because you have no good intention. Its hate that makes us irrational and you don't even have shame about it/

Sheer idiocy.

The Fool: On your side. <(XD) You should be avoiding it(ad homenin) 7H

Then you quote me saying "Don't understand what you mean here" and LEAVE OUT the quote that preceded it SHOWING what it is that I don't understand! So you put in irrelevant quotes and leave out relevant quotes!

The Fool: I Reorganizing and you just cant take a Lose.

tBoonePickens: Don't understand what you mean here.

The Fool: Dido. I have no idea why you are refuting you self?

Now you childishly respond that I am refuting myself for telling you that I don't understand what you wrote. Well, if you wanted hostility, you got it, pal!

The Fool: LOL (ad hominem) H8 . Well that if the fate of Hate.

Fool Said: But what everything we may find out. in what every form it is.

T-Boone said: Don't understand what you mean here.

The Fool: The explanation is there but you chop up the argumetn before reading and you confuse yourself.

So explain it.

Fool Said: Gods, outside anything what is IS a part of the absolute universe.

T-Boone said: Don't understand what you mean here.

Fool Said: You do understand because everything that exist in the The Absolute universe. You have just again. gone Cookoo.

tBoonePickens: You cannot be proved wrong, because it is a definition/premise. The concept is NOT a contradiction, and so I fail to see how it can be "proven" wrong. We may find out that the Universe (ie all of existence) is bigger than we thought, but that doesn't affect this definition, as it does not speak to size.

The Fool: As for finding out larger universe I covered that already.(Hedherring fallacy)

Fool Said: : Where? I haven't seen it.

The Fool: that all forms of existence are in the absolute Universe. You have just gone MAD again. Lol

The definition is not a part of the Four independent argument.

1) That's irrelevant as it DOES reference Universe as so SOME definition MUST be used.
2) You DID post the definition BUT then claimed that it wasn't part of the argument.

The Fool: No you are pentium one. Trying to battle with the latest modal. <(XD)

3) You are extremely incoherent point.

The Fool: Not you have been Fooled againt. and wrong.

4) Please post the definition of Universe that is used in the argument.

The Fool: you need to know what a V argument is. It is that definition But this was part of you Tboone attact on the intro. LMFAO. Which is not part to the Rest. Notice how you are not even Talking about the arguments at all.

Money people claim that object recognized though sense perception is all that exist. I thought you did too.
1) Many not money.
2) That would make these people wrong.

The Fool: exactly, I am saying that its more then just information from our Sense perception.

3) You thought wrong.

The Fool: We will talk about it when you are Clean alright buddy.

Remember that also destroys a possible conclusive doctrine of physicalism. (so many fallacies here to bother mentioning.)

Yes, this is why I reject it and showed you how you cannot make claims to OUTSIDE if only reality is in the mind.

The Fool: Its precieved from in the mind. Give a proof that it isn't (bold assumption fallacy)

I may be wrong but I am starting to think you don't know the difference between T and V and complex arguments are.

Never mind T & V & complex, you cannot even string together coherent statements!

The Fool: well my professors think otherwise.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 7:26:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
tBoonePickens:I don't know what you mean by hostility; please elaborate.

The Fool: Hostility is when you avoid giving an and answer with the intention. But I am the Fool. Its more of a matter of wasting time. Aka avoiding refutation.
The only one being evasive is yourself, as I have demonstrated many times. You write down nonsense and then expect people to respond to it. So, out of politeness, I ask you to elaborate and you respond with this rubbish?

The Fool: Bold assumption fallacy( ad homini,) H9
1) GFY
2) I will no longer be polite regarding your broken English.
The Fool: H10.

tBoonePickens:: As far as a Bold Assumption goes, there is nothing "bold" or "assuming" about existence being the ONLY logically possible state of the Universe. I have explained this NUMEROUS times, and this WILL be the last time: existence is the only possibility because non-existence DOES not exist. Because this is SO, existence cannot have a beginning nor can it have an end.
The funny part is that you have agreed with this countless times.

The Fool: It is very funny to see someone arguing with his self. This is not the first time. You did this last time too. Transcended means to go beyond but you don't know the Beyond so you can't claim it.
Again with your semantics. Please show me where the word "transcend" appears in the bold text above? Answer: it doesn't, however it does seem that YOU are arguing with yourself.

The Fool: you are so off point here. This is irrevent get back on course or get out.
tBoonePickens : If you believe "what IS is" then is there really a question of beginning? Answer: No.

The Fool: you have to believe to believe. That is no rational alternative.
More semantics; funny to see you on the ropes!

The Fool: Demonstration >?? (H11)
Restated: If "what IS is" then is there really a question of beginning?

Answer: No.

Boooom!


The Fool: yes you are discovering that you lost when you started. It wasn't meant for someone to agree. Hey I told you Hating is bad new bears. Lol. (Strawman fallacy on semantic games.)

Lol! It's rope-a-dope time! And you've been knocked out! I accept your concession!

The Fool: I am glad , you are the only one who things so. But then again You are Tboone. Your credibility has been shot.

tBoonePickens : The question to ask is, "what other possibilities are there" (to what IS is)? Well there is only one other possibility: "what IS NOT is" but that is a contradiction and so we are left with only one possibility.
The Fool: it's an argument you can you refute it or not?
Please use proper English.

The Fool: POC fail (h12)

tBoonePickens : 1) Please address what I wrote like I address what you write.
The Fool: I give arguments. You give ambiguous one liners with no reference to anything. Lol (Straw man fallacy)

Stay on course and stop deviating; it is a sign of a weak argument.

The Fool: you have many signs of senior moment. And I try to make the best out of what you are saying.

tBoonePickens : 2) I am speaking about a question. A question is NOT an argument, therefore I have no idea what you are talking about in reference to argument.

The Fool: A completely irrational question.

Then SAY that and SHOW how it is irrational instead of deviating in an attempt to obfuscate. As usual, you also left out said question in an effort to further cloud things.
The Fool: demonstration of the usuallity.
tBoonePickens : 3) If you are referring to P1, P2, P3, & C1 as the "argument", I HAVE addressed and refuted MANY parts of it and you have NOT properly dealt with said refutations.

The Fool: you haven't given demonstration. You are trying to tell me I don't mean what I mean. That is Crazy town. Its just one forum up!.

This is false; what I said was that you cannot make claims to outside the mind if reality resides within the mind.

The Fool: and I did/ /Show me how I can't . and show how you can??

tBoonePickens : 4) I suggest for you to only quote me on what you will be responding to and not any previous material. Just saying.

The Fool: All you need is one demonstration. Just copy and paste the ARGUMENT that you gave.. (4 hostilities.)

More attempts to obfuscate and pretend that you don't know what I mean. Clearly you have a weak argument.

The Fool: these are not arguments. I am sorry.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 7:35:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
tBoonePickens : P2 is a false dichotomy according to P1: remove all references to outer.

The Fool: When you demonstrate it I will agree(bold assumption fallacy)

I did demonstrated but still you pretend to not understand. Regardless, you claimed that it made no difference and yet here we are and you have not removed the reference. More weakness on your end.

The Fool: that is not a rational argument.
tBoonePickens:Again, you are not responding to my points.

The Fool: Demonstration ?? (Bold assertion fallacy)

I have, multiple times. It is clearly in your constant diversions, etc.
The Fool: that is not a rational argument. Just give an actual argument of them. Its that easy.

And it is what most people mean by outer experience its perfectly relavent. (Non-sequitar fallacy)

tBoonePickens :3) Argumentum ad populum.

The Fool: a meaning of a word is not an adherence to popularity.

Then you should not have adhered to it! Point remains.
The Fool: that is not a rational argument. Point remain. LOL! <(XD)

tBoonePickens : Yes, the significance is that it contradicts P1

The Fool: Demonstration ?? (Bold assertion fallacy)

See previous posts.

The Fool: that is not a rational argument.

tBoonePickens : P3 also contradicts P1: the physical has not been established within this framework

The Fool: Demonstration????(bold assumption fallacy)

You need to demonstrate that the physical has indeed been established; you have not. Point remains.
The Fool: that is not a rational argument. I gave my argument you need to refute that it is not true.

tBoonePickens : So it is "sense perception of the physical," but not the "physical." Or if we remove your "word games" it's simply sense perception.

The Fool: That is what its based on. That is all we have.

If it is all we have then you need not add things we don't have. Point remains.

Now you are seeing the IRRATIONAL JUMP!!

I have always seen it, that is, YOUR irrational jump!

The Fool: that is not a rational argument.

tBoonePickens : Now you are seeing how truly limited is your denial of physicalism!

The Fool: Demonstration??? (bold assumption fallacy)

See above.
The Fool: that is not a rational argument.
tBoonePickens : : Regardless, according to P1 the Universe IS the perceived Universe.

The Fool: I am sorry, do you know about the other rest of the universe. I am but a Fool about those things you see.

What other rest? You cannot make claims to that from within your framework.

The Fool: that is not a rational argument. But I did. Refute it?

tBoonePickens : Indeed you are a Fool!

The Fool: You are just figuring that out now..<(8J)

Even more foolish than I thought.

The Fool: that is not a rational argument. (H12)
tBoonePickens : The point is that the physical does exist outside the mind and its perceptions. Embrace physicalism!

The Fool: Good Demonstrate and related to the argument??? (bold assumption fallacy) (5 H)

No need to so here; you have enough work to do to clean up your incoherent mess!
The Fool: that is not a rational argument.

tBoonePickensEven a first grade education can figure out that someone implying that "it takes supernatural powers to believe in Physicalism" is a strawman. Try again.

The Fool: Well you are a grown man now I don;t think they would let you in. (bold assumption fallacy) 6H

Why yes it is a bold assumption to assume that they would not let me in! Regardless, the point still stands.

The Fool: that is not a rational argument.

tBoonePickens : Obviously, C1 is a "Bold assumption fallacy" so that's why it does not follow!

The Fool: Consciousness and experience is pre-linguistical to even be a possible a Bold assumption.

tBoonePickens Again, you are NOT addressing my point.

The Fool: There has been no arguments given yet?? (bold assumption fallacy)

Wrong, the arguments are given above in bold. Again you attempt to change direction and not deal with the issue at hand. Point still stands.

The Fool: that is not a rational argument. Good just put it in order in its own point to make its clear. I have been.

2) In C1, you are basically saying that in order to figure out if the Universe had a beginning you necessarily need to know ALL aspects of the Universe. That my Foolish friend is the EPITOME of a bold assumption! Boooom!

The Fool: you need to know what all the universe consisted of to make that calculation. Or it will not account for the entire universe.

NOT necessarily.

And that not what I am saying. (Strawman fallacy)) I thought you had 40 years of fun being T-boone. Copying is the best form of flattery, and I am flattered you like my wit! But that means being original. Maybe when you are even older...maybe.

Point still stands.

The Fool: that is not a rational argument.

tBoonePickens: Then you turn around and agree with me that it's settled and that we actually know it does not have beginning. So you are admiring defeat! I accept your graceful defeat!

The Fool: Turning around??? lol. You tried this last time remember. You have been arguing out of hate rage that you don't' even know what you are arguing. It says in the heading about the beginning of the universe. Next!

You've already admitted defeat twice, no need to go back on your word!

The Fool: demonstration. ??? (bold assumption fallacy)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 7:38:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: so boone this is getting messy. Just take my argument and and place your refuting ARGUMENT under. You said you have made them Then just show them.. Here is the first one!. Clear and distinct Put you argument below. Nice and clean. .

1. Argument from sense perception: v 1.1
P1 All experiences are within a frame work of consciousness/mind.
P2 I am also referring to inner(as all other sensations) and outer experiences(as physical/sense perception)
P3 Physical perception is only one aspect of our overall consciousness.
P4 Thus we could never from physical perception alone account for the beginning of the universe since we cannot account for all of it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL