Kantian Logic and scientific theories..

[Max]

I'm wondering at what point he'll realize he can't bullshit any further, and then just accuse ME of not refuting HIS 'points' and has no option but to not continue with the discussion. It's happened before... I'm sure you've all had that happen as well.

I usually just quote the person with a simple "Concession accepted".

Although I have a feeling he's going to add something else that's completely irrelevant and confusing to follow.

[Surlethe]

What a load of bullshit.

I'm not interested in the moral aspect of Kant's argument at all, when it comes to this topic. Only this: We can use logic and rationality (as two similar but different methods of deduction) to understand the world.

In other words, Kan'ts argument was a red herring. And how is "rationality" deductive?

PS, I split the two up as most people do: rational statements tend to get small, and logical statements get big, I guess.

What an utterly meaningless statement.

One way of testing a logical rule, such as x2 + y2 = z2, or whatever, is by maximizing it, or universalizing it, or whatever. Imagine the rule applied infinitely, and consider the results.

This particular moron doesn't even know what a logical rule is, and he's simply pulling the argument out of his ass. It's even self-defeating -- how does he know his manner of testing a logical rule is consistent if it's got to be tested first? When smart people converse, logic is simply assumed true and consistent.

Oh, and you don't prove a theorem with this idiotic "maximize or universalize"; you show the claim is a necessary condition of certain other statements which are assumed true.

So my assumptions are these:
1. There are likely some rules, however invisible, guiding reality, and through logic and rationality we can come to understand those rules.
1a. We do this because it's fun, and because it makes things so much easier.
2. We can assume a logical rule, and test it by universalizing it and seeing how the rule sustains itself in reality. (Good: By understanding one grain of sand, we can get a good feel for the entire beach. Bad: Phrenology, or something.)

Bullshit: he's given no evidence for this. What is a "logical rule", anyway?

3. If the logical rule is reasonably applicable, it's probably true.

Omigod, he's just blown away all of mathematics! So if P->Q and ~Q, ~P is only probably true?

So, I take the basest logical rule for Evolution to be: something comes from something else. That's pretty simple, but don't confuse that with naivete. I'm just using that as the base logical rule that seems to make the Theory of Evolution work so well.

What a posturing motherfucker; he's taken an undefined term, and is now throwing out various claims (which, incidentally, are not well defined, and therefore untestable) based on that term.

But by testing the rule, and I just randomly chose to test it by universalizing it, we see the entire universe's logic, don't we? And that's why it's so fascinating, initially. Stars form, comets crash, things spin really really fast, ice melts, et cetera. The Theory of Evolution, which rides on the base theory"something comes from something else" fits into a reasonably acceptable logical rule that we can observe in the universe. And so I agree that it's attractive to believe in, and it fits evidence, and it certainly is true enough.

He appears to be using the conservation laws in his undefined claim "something comes from something else". It's not even properly quantified!

But at a point, and this is where the Big Bang kind of comes in, the theory that "something comes from something else" ceases to be true.

Of course, he doesn't understand the Big Bang, either; he's simply claiming, without proof, that the Big Bang violates conservation laws.

Are we to believe that there was an infinitely small, infinitely old rock that one day, after getting too small, and too old, burst into a universe? Sure, I can buy that. That theory doesn't bother me. But it doesn't fit with the much nicer logical argument that is clearly "something comes from something else."

More evidence he doesn't understand the Big Bang: he thinks it was an explosion of matter, instead of an expansion of space and time.

Still reading? Sorry how long this is! I just wanna be clearer, since I think that's part of the problem.

So ultimately through universalizing our simple rule, we get this conundrum:

Now, the bifurcation, neatly based on a misunderstanding and distortion of accepted science:

1. Things may go back infinitely, which still doesn't solve anything. That's why I mentioned the goofy fable about the turtles holding up the world. The argument wasn't absurd because it was turtles (well, maybe a little ), it was absurd because the tower of turtles was infitely. I mean seriously, who would believe that? Things always fall into this "and then it was infinite" sort of mantra, which I think it a cop out really. Just kinda cheap.

Or 2. Instead of that, there was at some point only one thing, a first thing. But if that were true, the base that supports the Theory of Evolution, "something comes from something else," ceases to be true.

Note here how he's using the tired "first mover" argument, which is carefully based on misconstruing an undefined term: "something comes from something else".

In both of these possible cases, the base logic behind the argument ceases to function as a rule. And so, as attractive as evolution is as a theory, I don't think it's quite there yet, in describing everything.

Here is his coup d'etat! He has taken what he claims to be a sufficient condition for evolution, and turned it into a necessary condition! In other words he has claimed, "If 'everything comes from something' is true, then evolution is true"; but, he's turned around, and assumed the converse is true! Not only is his core argument flawed in its assumptions, its logic is flawed, as well!

-

Phewph! I can't believe how long that is. If anyone actually read all that, don't hate me for stealing so much of your life from you.

-

Now that that's done, I'd like to suggest one possible solution outside of God: We see that galaxies farther from the "centre" of the universe, where ever that is, are moving slower. One possible way to get around the "infinity" problem that plagues the theories that make the universe chug, is to assume that the universe will one day cease to grow, then begin to contract, perhaps going faster and faster, until it is reformed as one hot little ball, at which point the momentum and engery built up will release, thus resulting in a new Big Bang, and a rebirth of the universe.

This only cements the fact he clearly doesn't understand the Big Bang: the universe is, empirically, globally flat, and thus has no center.

Perhaps we are but one universe in this string of expansions and contractions, and our "Big Bang" was caused by just such a phenomena.

Still, that doesn't get us any closer to the question of how this material came to exist in the first place (thus still leaving our "something comes from something" theory in the dust), and makes me wonder what's outside the limits of the universe. After all, if it grows and contracts in physical space, what space outside of itself is it occupying?

Ah, the tired old "God is outside the universe" argument -- I got reamed on this one a year ago after I first joined here, so there's no way I'd forget the basic flaw with it: it ignores the definition of "universe". The universe, by definition, includes everything, and is a closed system. Therefore, God can't be outside the universe, because then not only would the universe be open (for him to interact with it), but it wouldn't include everything.

Sorry, it's just that I really enjoy these sorts of rhetorical problems

You're full of shit, too.

[Darth Wong]

I'm wondering at what point he'll realize he can't bullshit any further, and then just accuse ME of not refuting HIS 'points' and has no option but to not continue with the discussion. It's happened before... I'm sure you've all had that happen as well.

I usually just quote the person with a simple "Concession accepted".

Although I have a feeling he's going to add something else that's completely irrelevant and confusing to follow.

It can often be helpful, when dealing with someone who speaks in that manner, to paraphrase his entire argument down to one or two sentences (which is really what it boils down to), rather than answering him point by point. Judging by his response, he isn't answering you point by point; he just looks for an excuse to launch off on another short essay.

[drachefly]

Surlethe, just FYI, a flat universe can have a center in the sense that there is some special symmetry center; and non-flat universes can also have no center.

[Max]

Well, no, now he's just nitpicking my argument, and rehashing bullshit.. I guess reinforce that it's bullshit. Let's go through this, as it's starting to annoy me. He's not even really answering the questions I asked..

Max: Your arguments are getting circular, but aren't really very constructive. I am trying to see where you're coming from, but it's all getting a bit reactionary. I'd rather you spend more time educating me on your beliefs than just attacking mine.

You're definitely right on three main points in your previous post, and I'll address those, if you want. Though, really, I'm beginning to wonder if that's what you want.

Ok.. so you're accusing ME of becoming circular? You keep rehashing the same 'argument' and attempting to force me into to answering all your why's if's and hows.

Did you just create your own definition of what a logical rule is? Your argument is self-defeating -- how do you know your manner of testing a logical rule is consistent if it's got to be tested first?

Until you continue to demand that I justify myself!

What I like here, though, is that you note the the logical rule is self-defeating. The easiest way to answer this is to go on the assumption that the flaw in the statement isn't logical, so the test isn't to temper the logic, but the sentiment of the statement. I know you hate those convoluted sentences. :sorry:

Still, I'd prefer to leave your dilemma unanswered. Though pretty well everyone would pass over it, as that particular questioning's been done to death, I think it's important, because it reminds us that nothing is infallible. Maybe we should both learn from that!

As for me pulling logical rules out of my ass, you should see what I'm gonna do for act two!

Ok.. that just confuses me. Are you trying to make an argument by kind of answering and then retreating? What's that about..

You can't prove a theorem with this idiotic "maximize or universalize"; you show the claim is a necessary condition of certain other statements which are assumed true.

A=B.

That has what to do with "maximize or universalize"?

You're taking undefined terms and then throwing out various claims based on that undefined and untestable term.

The base term is self defined. You know that. Sometimes I feel like you're pretending not to understand, just so I have to type and type again.

But you're right about the claims. I should have been more elaborate. I was being dismissive. And, likewise, those two claims I presented are binary opposites, between which one might assume there could be a claim that might answer the dilemma I mentioned.

But the two opposites present the framework, within which a satisfactory result is unlikely ( highly unlikely). So it's good enough for me.

wtf *bangs head against keyboard*

Your conservation law claim is really poor, and I'd like you to point me to any physics class that teaches it that way. Your claim "something comes from something else" is completely undefined.

I didn't intend to use conservation law, but it certainly used me. It's kind of an inescapable characteristic of our universe, so why would you expect me to work around it? Like asking someone not to notice there's an elephant in the room. With a chainsaw.

Or like asking someone to use their brain?

You've used your claim as a sufficient condition for evolution, and turned it into a necessary condition? How did that happen? Let me get this straight, if 'everything comes from something' is a true statement, then that makes evolution true. However, then you go ahead and assume the opposite is true? Do you not see where your argument and logic are flawed?!

Here's the third point that I'd like to consider in your response. Of course, I think you're wrong. But let's just go through it.

In the first part, you're right that claiming "sufficiency" as "necessity" is a trap some people fall in. But I didn't do that. I claimed only that a base distillation of a theory doesn't sustain itself when universalized. That's all.

For the second part there, about me assuming the opposite is true, I didn't really do that either. I mean sure, because I believe in God, that result seems inevitable, doesn't it? But I didn't really do that. I merely suggest that we might need to rethink some things.

-

So yeah, that's it I guess. As awlays Max, a pleasure. Enjoy your day. If you'd like to call me stupid or point out even more things you consider assinine, holla back, yo!

What is with this 'universalizing' crap?

[Darth Wong]

As far as I can tell, he doesn't make a single point in that bizarre verbal spew. He doesn't defend his idiotic notion that the base concept of all science is "something comes from something else", nor does he ever explain his method for "testing" these "logical rules". He's just throwing up meaningless rhetorical nonsense and trying to walk away with his head held high even though he never answered any of the major points.

[Max]

So you got about as much as I did from it.

I wonder if he actually believes what he's typing to be true, or just using typing things for the sake of arguing.

[Darth Wong]

So you got about as much as I did from it.

I wonder if he actually believes what he's typing to be true, or just using typing things for the sake of arguing.

You have to understand the fundie idiot mindset. He "knows" he's right, but he doesn't respect the concept of logic at all. He views it as a mere tool that you use in arguments while you're trying to convince people he's right. He would never actually change one of his viewpoints because the logic led that way. To him, logic is like rhetoric: just a trick you use on people when you're selling them The Truth.

[Surlethe]

Surlethe, just FYI, a flat universe can have a center in the sense that there is some special symmetry center; and non-flat universes can also have no center.

Thank you. I stand corrected.