The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
(a) It is logical that nothing exists.
(b) The fact that something exists is illogical.
(c) Therefore, god is a woman.
Fixed.
Libraries are state sanctioned, so they're technically engaged in privateering. - Felch
I thought we're trying to have a serious discussion? It says serious in the thread title!- Al. B. Sure
omg guys i watched expelled you guys should watch it too it opened my eyez ben stein is right teh scientists are opresssing intelligent design you need to see the teh movie to see teh truth its unfair how they are censoring a different point of view this is america people should be free to voice their opinion kk thx bai
Originally posted by Sandman
It's not defending any old atheism, I think Hume and Dawkins have a valid point. Your counter-assertions aren't exactly brimming with intellectual vitality. There's no reason to believe in spiritual beings, for example.
We don't know enough about the universe to resolutely say that it could not possibly exist without a miraculously existing miracle-maker to get it started. Perhaps it could.
We're talking about comparing the universe to the concept of God.
The concept of God is spiritual while the universe as we know it (or defined it) is not spiritual.
You saying that there's no reason to believe in spiritual beings has nothing to do with this debate.
Even if they do not exist, then the concept of a spiritual being does still exist.
And Dawkins compares the universe to such a spiritual being when he says that the universe can be self-existing if God can be self-existing.
I'm not saying (in this debate) that the universe can't be self-existant. Nor am I saying (in this debate) that God can be self existant. I'm neither saying (in this debate) that God exists.
All that I'm saying is that it's stupid to claim that the universe can be self-existant if God (according to the concept we have of him) can be self existing.
If you can't follow that reasoning then you're just not able to reason abstract or at a philosophical level. neither are you able to take distance from your point of view and reflect on it.
And that's no problem. I have limitations in areas where you most probably shine.
My problem is just that someone like Dawkins who's worshipped as the god of atheism brings forth such nonsense.
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori
Originally posted by David Floyd
Fine, Lancer. That's certainly a philosophical argument for ID, and I'm perfectly happy with it being made - in a philosophy class. But surely you don't think that is a scientific argument, worthy of equal treatment with other scientific theory, correct?
I don't know, sorry.
Long time member @ Apolyton
Civilization player since the dawn of time
Originally posted by CyberShy
Basing a conclusion on the comparison between two things of a different kind is just stupid.
^^ Your conclusion that you based on logic that follows:
The Bike doesn't have a mother because the man who made the bike has a mother.
This is one example you give to demonstrate why it is (supposedly) fallacious to compare the necessity of a "cause" of God to the necessity of a "cause" of the universe.
Essentially what you are doing here is offering an analogy to illustrate your proffered principle (eg. that one item not requiring a "cause" does not require another item to require a "cause"). In doing so you are comparing the necessity (or lack thereof) of consistent application of "mother" to consistent application of "cause". (Meaning, that if something has a X, it doesn't necessarily require something else to have a X. With X being mother or cause interchangeably.)
It's not like wood cannot burn because water can't burn either.
Same thing. Just "burnable" and "cause" in this case.
A thought doesn't need space because the author of the thought also needs space.
Same thing. Just "space" and "cause".
See, what you are doing is drawing parallels to "cause". The fallacy of doing so though is that the principle of "all things must have a mother" is not the same thing as "all things must have a cause". To prove/disprove either requires disproving it specifically, not disproving the other. That is because "cause" and "mother" are different things, with different qualities. Same with "burning" and "cause", and "space" and "cause".
As for your overarching premise, it's false. It is perfectly reasonably to question why one item shouldn't require a cause while another does, until such point as it is provable one way or another that that is the case. As we do not have proof of the cause (or lack thereof) of God or the universe, it would be irrational to just accept that one exists without cause and the other must have cause (either way).
Originally posted by CyberShy
We're talking about comparing the universe to the concept of God.
The concept of God is spiritual while the universe as we know it (or defined it) is not spiritual.
You saying that there's no reason to believe in spiritual beings has nothing to do with this debate.
Even if they do not exist, then the concept of a spiritual being does still exist.
And Dawkins compares the universe to such a spiritual being when he says that the universe can be self-existing if God can be self-existing.
I'm not saying (in this debate) that the universe can't be self-existant. Nor am I saying (in this debate) that God can be self existant. I'm neither saying (in this debate) that God exists.
All that I'm saying is that it's stupid to claim that the universe can be self-existant if God (according to the concept we have of him) can be self existing.
If you can't follow that reasoning then you're just not able to reason abstract or at a philosophical level. neither are you able to take distance from your point of view and reflect on it.
And that's no problem. I have limitations in areas where you most probably shine.
My problem is just that someone like Dawkins who's worshipped as the god of atheism brings forth such nonsense.
The distinction you are drawing between spiritual and physical is artificial and irrelevant. God's self-existence has nothing to do with being 'spiritual'. The religious may believe in other spiritual beings, be they souls, angels, demons or whatever. These may or may not be 'self-existant', there is no link between 'spiritual' and being uncreated.
I could reverse your argument and insist that it's absurd to take the physical property of the universe as existing without a cause, and apply it a mythical spiritual being. I could apply the idea of human souls being miraculously created at conception to 'prove' that a spiritual beings must be a result of physical interactions in the universe.
Atheists or pantheists may take the view that the universe just plain exists, but according to you they ought not to steal this idea of uncaused existence from the theists 'because it's spiritual'. Never mind that they possibly thought of it first.
See, what you are doing is drawing parallels to "cause". The fallacy of doing so though is that the principle of "all things must have a mother" is not the same thing as "all things must have a cause". To prove/disprove either requires disproving it specifically, not disproving the other. That is because "cause" and "mother" are different things, with different qualities. Same with "burning" and "cause", and "space" and "cause".
That's an interesting thought.
You are right, the fact that that water can't burn while wood can burn doesn't mean that god doesn't need a cause while the universe does need a cause.
Those were more examples then proves.
I tried to give an example of how I was thinking.
But you are right, I didn't prove that God didn't need a cause while the universe needs a cause.
As for your overarching premise, it's false. It is perfectly reasonably to question why one item shouldn't require a cause while another does, until such point as it is provable one way or another that that is the case. As we do not have proof of the cause (or lack thereof) of God or the universe, it would be irrational to just accept that one exists without cause and the other must have cause (either way).
I've never claimed (in this debate) that the universe needs a cause while God doesn't need a cause.
All I did was claiming that the conclusion that the universe doesn't need a cause b/c God doesn't need a cause is false.
The debate if God and/or the universe need a cause is a different debate. You are right that I think that God doesn't nessecarily need a cause while I think that the universe does need a cause, but that was not the point I tried to make.
The distinction you are drawing between spiritual and physical is artificial and irrelevant. God's self-existence has nothing to do with being 'spiritual'. The religious may believe in other spiritual beings, be they souls, angels, demons or whatever. These may or may not be 'self-existant', there is no link between 'spiritual' and being uncreated.
I wasn't trying to make clear that God is self-existing b/c he is a spiritual being.
I tried to make clear that you can't compare God with the universe and copy the properties of God to the universe.
I could reverse your argument and insist that it's absurd to take the physical property of the universe as existing without a cause, and apply it a mythical spiritual being.
That would be stupid as well indeed.
I could apply the idea of human souls being miraculously created at conception to 'prove' that a spiritual beings must be a result of physical interactions in the universe.
What exactly are you trying to prove?
Maybe you're right that a spiritual being can't be self-existing as well, so what? That's not what we are debating here.
We are debating the question if you can compare the universe to God.
When in a philosophical debate make sure that you're not getting lost in different debates.
Atheists or pantheists may take the view that the universe just plain exists, but according to you they ought not to steal this idea of uncaused existence from the theists 'because it's spiritual'. Never mind that they possibly thought of it first.
No, that's not what I said.
I just say that it's foolish to claim that the universe is self-existing because God can be self existing.
Right now I'm not trying to prove that the universe can't be self existing, I try to make clear that the argumentation is wrong. Not the point of view. I'm not arguing the concept of a self-existing universe.
I'm arguing that the argument Dawson gave for this self-existince is kindergarten level.
Don't confuse the argument with the point of view.
One can have a very good opinion backed up by poor arguments, and visa versa.
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori
Originally posted by CyberShy
All I did was claiming that the conclusion that the universe doesn't need a cause b/c God doesn't need a cause is false.
I think you misunderstand the "claim". It's not a claim that the universe exists without a "cause" (though that claim can and has been made of course...), just an illustration of what the logic creationists are relying upon opens up.
Creationist claim God has no "cause", and very commonly claim that the universe must have a "cause". (Which you have admitted you feel is true as well.) When making such a claim about God's existence, creationists "open up" (if only in their own minds) the possibility for something to exist without a "cause", thus it is perfectly acceptable to turn their logic against them and claim that if it is true that something can exist without a "cause", then something else could also exist without a "cause". That is to say, even with the creationist's own logic, God as a creator is not required.
That is because there is no evidence to suggest a qualitative difference in that regard between God and the universe. (Outside perhaps that the universe can be proven to actually exist, while God cannot. Which of course creationists can't use as an argument. ) That is different than say... how the qualitative differences between wood and water can be readily observed and measured, as can their reactions to various circumstances. It would be faulty to say that because wood burns at a given temperature, atmosphere, ect, that water under the same circumstances will burn too. We can say that is faulty because we can test and observe both wood and water under those circumstances and ascertain how they react. (However water, or at least the matter which comprises it, can burn in a more roundabout manner.)
The creation of God (or lack thereof) and creation of the universe (or lack thereof) cannot (or at least has not) been observed and tested, and so no qualitative analysis of the manner of their creation (or lack thereof) can be given, thus there is no reason to suggest that one or the other can exist without being created while the other must have been created. They are essentially equal in that regard... unknowns. That is the point of saying, "if God can exist without a creator, then the universe can also exist without a creator."
Round them to the nearest whole number, and get 2 + 2 = 5.
Also, 2 + 2 = 3 for very small values of 2:
1.5 + 1.5 = 3
Indeed, with margins of error, one can have lots of fun:
(2.0 ± 2.0) + (2.0 ± 2.0) = (4.0 ± 4.0), or the set of all numbers between {0, 8}.
When I typed that I knew some mathematics wanker would write up something similar to this tripe.
I'm consitently stupid- Japher I think that opinion in the United States is decidedly different from the rest of the world because we have a free press -- by free, I mean a virgorously presented right wing point of view on the air and available to all.- Ned
I think you misunderstand the "claim". It's not a claim that the universe exists without a "cause" (though that claim can and has been made of course...), just an illustration of what the logic creationists are relying upon opens up.
I understand that.
I'm not that stupid that I think that atheists base their causeless universe on God
And yes, I am aware that you try to show our stupidity by claiming that according to our logic the universe can be causeless as well, which takes away 'our' first cause argument.
Don't understimate the intelligence of stupid theists
And no, it's not only creationists that see much into the 'first cause argument'.
Also theistic-evolutionists and full-evolutionists who believe in God see the value of the first cause argument. Not to mention the ID'ers of course.
The first cause argument factually has nothing to do with evolution or creationism. Neither has it anything to do with ID or creationism. It's more about the big-bang, though it technically even precedes the big-bang.
But you do not counter our first-cause argument with the "But the universe can be causeless as well" trick.
And that's because the logic that applies to the concept of God doesn't need to apply to the universe as well.
The creator doesn't have to live up to the same laws as the creation.
Some examples again:
- a computer programmer does not need power while his code does.
- a bike maker doesn't need paint while is bike does
- a car maker doesn't need gass while his car does.
You apparantly aren't able to think like a theist.
If you want to counter us you must understand our way of reasoning. Our way of reasoning may be wrong, but as long as you don't understand our way of reasoning you can never counter it. Not to mention that you can't be sure if it's wrong if you don't understand it.
I think that there are very good reasons to say that the universe as we know it needs a cause. Perhaps it doesn't need a cause, but we have no reasons to believe that right now. If you believe that the universe needs no cause then that's based on faith, not on scientific evidence. It's morely a 'science of the gaps' way of reasoning. It's having faith that future science will show us that the universe needs no cause.
Right now we know that everything we know needs a cause. Current sciencific knowledge teaches us that the perpetuum mobile does not exist.
And an ever-existing universe needs to be a perpetuum mobile.
Since theists believe that God is not a part of the universe there's no reason to believe that he has to live up to the same laws as the universe. Maybe he does need to, but there's no scientific reason that something that's not a part of the universe needs to live up to the laws of the universe.
Like the bike-maker doesn't need to live up to the bike or the computer programmer doesn't need to live up to the code-language in which he created the programm.
Claiming that the first-cause argument is bollocks because applying the same logic to the universe logically creates a self-causing universe is false. It shows a 'heathen' way of reasoning. Heathens believed that the gods were a part of the universe. Theists (or better: monotheists) believe God is not.
If you want to counter the first-cause argument you need to give reasons why the universe can be causeless or self-causing.
thus it is perfectly acceptable to turn their logic against them and claim that if it is true that something can exist without a "cause", then something else could also exist without a "cause". That is to say, even with the creationist's own logic, God as a creator is not required.
Following the theistsic first-cause logic it should indeed be possible that theoretically there are more self-causing or causeless things. Maybe there's an uber-god or there are other gods in parallel dimensions, or whatever.
The first-cause argument is not a way to say that only God can be the first cause or that there's only causeless being. It just states that there must be a first cause for the universe. Or for matter or space.
And once again, the first-cause argument doesn't mean that God must be that first cause. Perhaps there's something else that caused the universe which is not God. And maybe that other cause needed a cause as well.
All that the first-cause argument does is making clear that there must be more then the universe based on the premise that the universe needs a cause and the premise that a cause never can be a part of that what it caused.
That is because there is no evidence to suggest a qualitative difference in that regard between God and the universe.
There is a qualitative difference between the cause and the thing that has been caused.
And there's also a qualitative difference between (the concept of) God and the universe.
There's a qualitative difference between the creator and the creation.
If you want to win this debate you must show that the universe needs no cause. If you can do that then there's no need for a creator or a god anymore. Just stating that following the same logic there's no need for a universe is baseless.
Not to mention of course that the question if God needs a cause is meaningless to this debate. Perhaps God does also need a cause. Perhaps God must also worship an uber-God, who knows.
But as long as we have no scientific reasons to believe that our universe can be causeless or self-causing, our universe needs an extra-universal cause.
You most probably desire to find good reasons to believe that the universe needs no cause because that gives fuel to your believe that there is no God.
That is because there is no evidence to suggest a qualitative difference in that regard between God and the universe.
Proving that God does exist is impossible.
Making it logical that we need a cause is possible. (proving it is impossible again b/c you have to prove the negative).
That first cause can be an extra-universal thing that obeys it's own laws and is nothing but a natural force.
The creation of God (or lack thereof) and creation of the universe (or lack thereof) cannot (or at least has not) been observed and tested
No, but we can think about it.
Philosophy is an important part of science.
Darwin started philosophing about evolution.
If we can't debate/think about things we cannot see/prove, then science will never advance.
no qualitative analysis of the manner of their creation (or lack thereof) can be given
The first cause argument doesn't talk about God or it's properties, but the necessarity for the university to have a cause can be debated very well.
You mix those things up.
thus there is no reason to suggest that one or the other can exist without being created while the other must have been created.
We are not debating the question if God must or must not be created or caused.
We are debating the question if the universe needs a cause or not.
That is the point of saying, "if God can exist without a creator, then the universe can also exist without a creator
Which is false.
It's like saying: I will be 100 because my granny also did.
Or water can burn because wood burns.
You must give reasons why the universe can be uncaused like God can be uncaused.
You haven't given any reason for that.
My reasons are:
- God is extra-universal and therefore doesn't need to comply to the universal laws of nature
- God is spiritual while the universe is (at least partially) material / physical
You are mixing up different debates.
These debates are:
- does the universe need a cause
- does God need a cause
- does God exist
Let's focus on the first now.
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori
Originally posted by Zero
omg guys i watched expelled you guys should watch it too it opened my eyez ben stein is right teh scientists are opresssing intelligent design you need to see the teh movie to see teh truth its unfair how they are censoring a different point of view this is america people should be free to voice their opinion kk thx bai
I can't watch the video he posted; is this dude trolling?
I can't watch the video he posted; is this dude trolling?
I assume he is trolling.
The video shows a phone conversation between the 2 atheist speakers (radio talk) and a creationist listener, claiming he has a proof of creation.
The guy gives usual circular logic, personnal belief, invoking the so-called obvious, false dichotomic arguments of most creationists.
After a while, fed-up by the guy providing no proof at all, one of the speakers, just shuts the line.
The books that the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its own shame. Oscar Wilde.
ID is a philosophy. It does not lend itself to scientific proof, either for or against. It has no place in a science class.
No it is not. It is a scientific theory that happens to be false or an unproven religious claim.
The argument from design gets taught in philosophy of religion classes, but is considered to have been refuted by the provenance of evolution. When that argument was first written down, it was actually a reasonably good argument because there was no plausible explanation for the apparent complexity of the world and completely random processes were not a likely candidate for explanation. Evolution provided the alternative non-random process that rendered the argument pointless.
The only reason it gets taught in philosophy classes is to demonstrate that it is false.
Any empirically based argument for the existence of an Intelligent designer has to meet scientific standards of proof.
Any faith based position is to be immediately discounted, since it eschews proof in favour of dogmatism.
The only way you are likely to prove the existence of God or an Intelligent designer is by using metaphysical arguments. But these are notoriously difficult and tend not to produce the sort of Gods that religious people want to believe in. There's also a philosophical tradition of anti-metaphysical arguments, so there's that as well.
Tweet
Comment