Religions and their respective bubbles of delusion

Post Reply New Topic

[fantastical nonsense]I tend to think of dimension like it goes like a pyramid. However, it also reflects back upon itself in a cyclical sort of manner while the cycle is outside the concept of time. Will probably update when they actually get the physics more solidified and will maybe someday make it less nonsensical.

point-god-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/\
wave/line-duality------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/\/\
curved/sphere-irrational numbers---------------------------------------------------------------------------3 3 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/\ /\ /\
multiple universes-irrational numbers become finite----------------------------------------------------4 4 4 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/\ /\ /\ /\
all probability-any and everything can be made to occur----------------------------------------------5 5 5 5 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
everything and nothing occurs all at once resulting in big bang type singularity----------------------1



[/fantastical nonsense]


And if I put a star on top, we can celebrate the winter solstice.


Edit: Damn the man and not allowing me to use gratuitous spaces so I can actually achieve the graphical representation. Now no one will get the winter solstice joke.

No ASCII art love?

re-Edit: Added support beams to my "pyramid".

Last edited by skafather84 on 25 Sep 2009, 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Atheist Experience, if any of you are familiar with that program, has dealt a lot of times with cosmological arguments. Watch as a caller brings it up:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiQbSBAWtw0[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHUhB2kltvQ[/youtube]

Dimension means to measure. There is nothing imaginary about it. Once you establish an origin on a line it requires only one measurement to locate any other point so a line is one dimensional. You need two measurements on a two dimensional plane and three dimensions to locate a point in a solid. To locate a point in space and time you need the three spacial measurements and the instant the point was at that place. You need the time. It's only geometry. No mystery whatsoever.

Hawking's solution to the Black Hole Information Paradox was that there must be multiple universes where the same information is never lost in the black hole. Meaning the black hole never existed in the alternate universe meaning that multiple probabilities must be possible meaning a fifth dimension to measure the different probabilities.

Actually any multiple universe theory requires another dimension beyond time consider that it would rely on probabilities formulating differently.

I have no argument with that. Merely that in my practical experience I work constantly with four dimensions.

You work constantly with 3.5 dimensions.

Unless you travel back in time somehow and you're holding out on me.

Not cool, I thought you'd be willing to share time travel...at least with me.

A dimension is a measurement. There is no such thing as half a measurement.

Last edited by Sand on 25 Sep 2009, 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If I only measured depth, would I be using 3 dimensions?

So much for last laugh...looks messed up still thanks to different resolution.


Oh well...I'm sure most can grasp the flow I was failing to illustrate.

By 'argument from reason' are you talking about atheism. If you are, I would agree that some one who declares 100% that there is no god is talking from ignorance, that ignorance being a lack of knowledge of the existing god. This is why I prefer Dawkins take on atheism when he says "I am agnostic about god in the same manner as I am agnostic about the toothfaerie" ( I don't have the quote in front of me, so please excuse any slight change to it).

Given our ever increasing, but still, woefully small knowledge of cosmological physics, I hold by my original statement of the cosmological argument. To my mind it is a simplistic way to explain the unknown. Yes there may be a god, but considering all the previous gaps in our knowledge that were once filled by god and are now fully explained, I expect science will continuously push religion further and further into the realm of make believe . The cosmological argument has far less substance than string theory which having no empirical data on which to base it, is really a philosophy and not a theory, but at least the proponents are trying to understand the nature of the cosmos rather than just saying "god did it", which I consider to be a very ignorant approach.

And some theists argue that God entered time to create the universe, and thus we currently have a God in time.

I don't see how it is impossible to envision a timeless being though.


Let's see, if we assume that time is a property of this existent universe, then a being that exists outside of this universe would not be bound by our set of temporal relations. Additionally, such a being would not have a succession of actions.

Zeno's paradox claims an empirical truth that is actually false. The cosmological argument doesn't. I suppose if you want to get to the infinity issue of the situation, one does not have to accept infinities to say that Zeno's paradox fails, one could also accept a basic temporal unit, where further divisions could no longer take place, meaning that the paradox fails as then we just have a finite amount of time, and so the runner should surpass the tortoise eventually, it would just take a *lot* of steps. The reason to reject infinities is usually derived from paradoxical issues with Hilbert's hotel, and paradoxical issues with a beginningless past.

I suppose you could just be saying that ontological arguments suck.

Plantinga's isn't as bad as Anselm's.
1) It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2) It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3) Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4) Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5) Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6) Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Alexander Pruss also has an ontological argument that isn't terrible.

1) The best accounts of what it is to be a perfection all define perfection in terms of God: e.g., that to be a perfection is to be an intrinsic property of God, or that to have a perfection is to be like God, or that to have a perfection is to be God or to participate in God. (Premise)
2) Therefore, the true account of what it is to be a perfection defines perfection in terms of God. (Probabilistic inference from 1)
3) Either there is no definition of God or God is defined in a way dependent on the concept of a perfection (e.g., as the being that has all perfections). (Premise)
4) If God is defined in terms of perfection, then an account of perfection in terms of being had by God is a circular and (hence) false account. (Premise)
5) Therefore, God is not defined in a way that is dependent on the concept of a perfection. (By 2 and 4)
6) Therefore, there is no definition of God. (By 3 and 5)
7) If x does not exist and has no definition, then an account of a natural (i.e., non-gerrymandered) or ethically significant concept does not involve x. (Premise)
The concept of a perfection is natural or ethically significant. (Premise)
9) Therefore, if God does not exist, then the true account of what it is to be a perfection does not involve God. (By 6, 7 and
10) Therefore, God exists. (By 2 and 9)

Are these *great* arguments? I am not saying that, but one does not need brilliant points to establish a case for a position. One must just have points one considers valid. (I would think that Plantinga's argument is better than Pruss's)

Knowing something doesn't require action though, and many notions of God do not involve a God who learns but rather a God who always knows that is going on.

Perfection and excellence are total nonsense. They are comparisons with an undefined ideal which is basically a semantic idiocy. Existence is determined by our sense apparatus and theoretical model making derived out of that obtained data. None of the derived models are irreducibly true as further accumulations of sense data can confront and destroy the validity of any theoretical model. The existence of a God is one of the derived models and the sense data upon which it is based can be interpreted in more rational ways.

By 'argument from reason', I am referring to the argument that if human reason exists, then theism must be true. The issue with that is that there is no strong improbability in saying that reason could not have evolved, or strong reason for an atheist to say that humans are deeply rational. I mean, arguing from dualism is better than the argument from reason, as human rationality can easily just be defended as an emergent property.

The cosmological argument is philosophy, and philosophy has no problems being philosophy. I don't think that the cosmological argument suffers a significant God of the gaps issue though. Why? Because the issue is causality, not any scientific matter. The issue is that some of the speculations can be questioned and doubted.

Kenny is an idiot(or just under stress). His atheist rebutters wouldn't stand much chance against William Lane Craig. Their strong point is attacking the as a specific model about a situation we don't know much about.

I think Russell's argument about the embodiment of minds isn't strong, because we do not experience minds as embodied but rather often we experience minds somewhat dualistically. I think the point about speculation also isn't that great though, if only because Kenny's problem was less of a speculation issue, and actually involves real logical issues that have to be addressed. Also, I think one of the atheists misrepresented Kenny, because Kenny was reading from Craig and Craig does not make the same mistake that saying "all things have a cause" but rather says "all things that begin have a cause" where God is exempt. Craig also argues that God enters time to create the universe, which one can question the "how" of, but I would imagine that Craig would have some intelligent attempt to defend the idea.

I mean, I really would not consider the rebuttal of Craig as "not being a scientist" as being fair to Craig, as the man is brilliant and a philosopher of time(meaning that he would have to know a lot about the physics anyway, and this kind of physics is rather mathematical to begin with, so a lab wouldn't even be necessary). I mean, Luke Muelhauser of commonsenseatheism.com really praises the guy a *lot*. http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2996 even crediting the guy as knowing the science incredibly well. (I didn't watch the youtube series down there, but if anyone wants to criticize Craig's knowledge of science, they can go ahead and watch those videos)

Well, comparisons with God, who they take as beyond definition.

I don't see how one can just out and say "perfection" and "excellence" are just total nonsense. I am not saying that there is no reason to deny the existence of those properties, one can easily deny them, but all that one just has to show that a person can rationally believe in God, not that God exists, as the topic I invoked was never "God exists" but rather "a person can be semi-rational to believe that God exists". I think part of this is just my identification with DW_a_mom in that she felt attacked.