What's new
Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Online forum for sale. Please send Stovebolts PM for details. https://meetchristians.net
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

[_ Old Earth _] matter and energy(and other fallacies of atheism)

C

cubedbee

Guest
We are using inductive reasoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which a general rule is inferred from some set of specific observations. It is to ascribe properties or relations to types based on limited observations of particular tokens; or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is used, for example, in using specific propositions such as:
This swan is white.
A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue.
to infer general propositions such as:
All swans are white.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite re-action
Some philosophers consider the term "inductive logic" a misnomer because the validity of inductive reasoning is not dependent on the rules of formal logic which is by definition only deductive, not inductive. In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same validity as the initial assumptions. In the example above, the conclusion that all swans are white is obviously wrong, but may have been thought correct in Europe until the settlement of Australia. Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning expresses the truth-value of its inferences in terms of probability rather than necessity.

The problem of induction, the search for a justification for inductive reasoning, was formally addressed first by David Hume. Hume criticised induction based on repeated experiences.

Philosophers since at least David Hume recognized a significant distinction between two kinds of statements, later called by Immanuel Kant "analytic" and "synthetic."

Analytic truths, such as "All bachelors are unmarried men," or "Human beings are two-legged animals" are supposed to be true by virtue of the meanings of the words alone.
Synthetic statements, such as "All ravens are black," or "All men are mortal," are true if at all only by virtue of some facts about the world. One has to discover that men die and ravens are black.
W. V. Quine debunked this distinction in his influential essay Two Dogmas of Empiricism and postulated that any empirical evidence that seems to falsify any particular theory can always be accommodated by the theory in question. (See confirmation holism.)

Both statistics and the scientific method rely on both induction and deduction.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Featherbop said:
No, barbarian, common decent, as you put it, has not been proven. Evidence for it, is not based on any sure thing.

Thats a reason I don't put my faith in evolution, it has no standered, it can make itself what it wants to be.

____
How did your God magic himself into existence, same dilemma.
The old chicken and the egg.
No standered?(sic) What about Neanderthals etc.
We've found skulls that are similar to ours but obviously different, and a whole heap older. How do you explain that?
As for saying evolution making itself what it wants to be,
geez isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
 
B

Blue-Lightning

Guest
How did your God magic himself into existence, same dilemma.
Two questions, let's see if you will answer them:

1. Is it said that God created everything from nothing?
2. Is time something?


We've found skulls that are similar to ours but obviously different, and a whole heap older. How do you explain that?
What do you mean, how do "you" explain that? I see skulls that are differentiated from modern organisms. By the way, how much is a heap?

BL
 
B

Blue-Lightning

Guest
I worded it carefully so that it is Sophist, not as you claim. Notice that I say "is it said...".

BL
 
S

SyntaxVorlon

Guest
I was criticing your asking for a definition of a heap.

The issue here is that Bop is arguing that god created matter and energy and that these are not eternal, or at least it seemed that way until he started arguing against a strawman of my side's position.
 
B

Blue-Lightning

Guest
Oh, gotcha.

I asked for the definition 50% for humor and 50% to ease on over to more objective terms in the future.

As for the argument about matter and energy being created and eternal:

It is necessary due to the universe's own laws that all matter and energy be constant. However, it is also necessary that matter and energy have a beginning from which they have been constant - and nothing within the universe can create matter nor energy, unless one includes supernatural which would then be metaphysics which is much hypothesis and little substance.

So - matter and energy have a beginning, but they are unending from that point unless a supernatural or external event takes place. And, as always, we don't know everything, so who knows - it could just disappear all of a sudden and we never had a clue. :lol:

BL
 
S

SyntaxVorlon

Guest
Blue-Lightning said:
It is necessary due to the universe's own laws that all matter and energy be constant. However, it is also necessary that matter and energy have a beginning from which they have been constant - and nothing within the universe can create matter nor energy, unless one includes supernatural which would then be metaphysics which is much hypothesis and little substance.
There are ways around this, most substantially is a form of the BBT. The universe may have only existed for the 13.7 billion years and before that time itself was dialated due to the density of the starting mathematical point that was the universe during the BB.
So - matter and energy have a beginning, but they are unending from that point unless a supernatural or external event takes place. And, as always, we don't know everything, so who knows - it could just disappear all of a sudden and we never had a clue. :lol:
Now be careful, because it would be hasty to call it supernatural simply because it isn't currently understood. It is analogous to the view that the motion of the planets in ancient times was supernatural, but that was only applied because nothing was understood. Supernatural isn't an answer here, it is a concession of lack of knowledge.
The likely hood of all matter to spontaneously disappear is ungaugable because all of science tells us this cannot happen.
 
B

Blue-Lightning

Guest
The universe may have only existed for the 13.7 billion years and before that time itself was dialated due to the density of the starting mathematical point that was the universe during the BB.
I've heard that before, but it leaves two questions unanswered. If time is at a hault, how do events take place (time being just the flow of events)? And if no events are taking place, then how does the BB occur. The other question has to be, where did the dense mass come from - it can't just be there for no reason, to do so would defy the laws of the universe.

Now be careful, because it would be hasty to call it supernatural simply because it isn't currently understood.
Note that I said external before I said "or supernatural." Those are your two choices and you and I both would agree that the creation of energy and matter (a.k.a. this universe) was by an external prime mover. Of course, in order to be scientifically ethical, I must admit that a supernatural event is possible.

The likely hood of all matter to spontaneously disappear is ungaugable because all of science tells us this cannot happen.
Science doesn't, our conclusions do. And while I think the probability of it is so miniscule that I invented it just for the sake of the argument, it isn't impossible and it is possible that our conclusions are wrong.

See ya',

BL
 
S

SyntaxVorlon

Guest
Blue-Lightning said:
The universe may have only existed for the 13.7 billion years and before that time itself was dialated due to the density of the starting mathematical point that was the universe during the BB.
I've heard that before, but it leaves two questions unanswered. If time is at a hault, how do events take place (time being just the flow of events)? And if no events are taking place, then how does the BB occur. The other question has to be, where did the dense mass come from - it can't just be there for no reason, to do so would defy the laws of the universe.
Time wasn't at a halt it's just that the primal singularity was moving very slowly because of its near, but importantly not quite, infinite density.
As for the second question, it's always been there, but that in that infinity of time before hand things moved nearly infinitely slowly, the universe if you extrapolate back to infinity is scaled asymptotically. Perhaps like the graph of e ^ t for the time before inflation began at least.(If you've a graphing calculator handy.)
[quote:ae157]Now be careful, because it would be hasty to call it supernatural simply because it isn't currently understood.
Note that I said external before I said "or supernatural." Those are your two choices and you and I both would agree that the creation of energy and matter (a.k.a. this universe) was by an external prime mover. Of course, in order to be scientifically ethical, I must admit that a supernatural event is possible.
[/quote:ae157]
Who said I agreed with that? I'm more in favor of the asymptotic time, because it doesn't require a prime mover. I also disagree that supernatural events must be seen as possible, because the definition of supernatural is metaphysical, and that's just not cricket as far as science is concerned.
[quote:ae157]The likely hood of all matter to spontaneously disappear is ungaugable because all of science tells us this cannot happen.
Science doesn't, our conclusions do. And while I think the probability of it is so miniscule that I invented it just for the sake of the argument, it isn't impossible and it is possible that our conclusions are wrong.
BL
[/quote:ae157]
It's possible our conclusions are wrong in this regard, but so irrevocably improbable as to warrant disgarding such an argument out of hand.
 
Top