View Single Post
Old 09-18-2020, 02:42 PM   #121
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,084
Re: Something from nothing

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh View Post
Oh by the way, compare Aaron's representation of what's been said to what was actually said, note things like the little words he inserts to give himself escape routes like "His interpretation of this is that therefore all my beliefs about God are irrational "....
You should think carefully about the role of language in syllogisms.

P1) Socrates is a man
P2) A man is a human
C) Socrates is a human

I've constructed this syllogism using "to be" and without using the word "all." But it is impossible for this syllogism to be successful unless the word "all" is implicit in the categorical declaration ("A man is a human" means "All men are human.")

So now let's look at what you've stated:

P1) Aaron has admitted that his god beliefs are illogical
P2) Aaron is always truthful
C) It's true that Aaron's god beliefs are illogical
How should one interpret the collection that you have labeled "my god beliefs"? This is "the collection of beliefs I hold about God." The word "all" is implicit in this type of categorical language, and it essentially always is.

------------------- Sorry not sorry for the wall of text that follows. If anyone quotes this, please just quote this line and not the whole thing. Nobody will be confused about what it refers to. -------

he also uses the word 'all' in posts about beliefs not being formed using formal logic.
Here is the post that you've referred to (post #53). I welcome you identify where I used the word "all" or where it is that you think "all" was implicit (though your language clearly indicates that your belief is that I explicitly used that word).

I've bolded the part that you've quoted repeatedly as making evidence that I've claimed my beliefs are illogical. I welcome you to identify the use of the word "all" in that post. Go ahead. (Pro tip: Ctrl-F "all")

Originally Posted by AW
Originally Posted by MB
No, you haven't shown it, you just claimed it, but failed to show how it could be something other than what it is.
LOL --- You suck at reading. See post #26.

Originally Posted by AW
I can also accept both P1 and P2 while constructing a situation in which C1 fails using a construction that's vaguely similar to the ones used in Zeno's paradox of motion.

Suppose at time t = 1 there is something (thus satisfying P2). Call that thing s_1 (something at time 1). That something must have come from something else, which we will call s_0.1 (something at time 0.1). But something must precede that, s_0.01. And something else must precede that, s_0.001. And we can continue this regression infinitely. And yet this construction shows that you are unable to properly conclude that something existed at time t = 0. We can track backwards this way "forever" (whatever that even means) and never get an affirmative statement about s_0's existence.

In other words, it's possible to start with something existing now, and then trace backwards in time, but not prove that something has always existed.

Originally Posted by MB
Ah, 'additional time element', when did that occur to you?
See Post #26. If you had actually read my post, you would have seen it already. But alas, you suck at reading.

Originally Posted by MB
Interesting, but it doesn't change anything. 'something cannot come from nothing' does have a time element because it would clearly be a transition from one state to another and the two different states cannot both exist simultanouesly, so your new objection fails.
LOL. No. How little you seem to understand about anything you're actually arguing. You're pointing right to Zeno's paradox, as I had anticipated way back. If you understood that paradox, you would understand why this type of time tracing simply fails. You cannot trace backwards infinitely far in time with your logic.

Edit: Explicitly -- Achilles and the Tortoise: Suppose you give a tortoise a head-start in a race against Achilles. At the start of the race, the tortoise is ahead and therefore it must take time for Achilles to get to where the tortoise started. But in that amount of time, the tortoise has moved forward. So then after Achilles gets to that point, he's going to have to catch up again to get to the tortoise's new position. But in the time it takes him to get there, the tortoise has moved forward again. And in this way, Achilles can never catch the tortoise because every time he reaches the next spot, the tortoise has moved ahead again.

Originally Posted by MB
Notice how in all of this, you have constantly sidestepped having to address that you are guilty of special pleading...
I have made no argument. Therefore, I have made no special pleading.

By all means, prove that there cannot be something that exists without a cause of itself? Or why that thing would be a god instead of the universe itself?
This may be a shock to you: Most people don't believe things in their lives on the basis of formal arguments. I'm one of those most people. This doesn't negate the value of formal arguments, but it turns out that what you believe is a function of what you assume, and assumptions are not formally derived statements.

I don't believe you can derive "God" in any formal logical sense. I've already been explicit that I think the Kalam argument is weak. You are once again assuming that anyone that believes X must support any argument of X. That's literally not how any of this stuff works.

Also notice (again) how you're trying to evade your own intellectual problems by pointing at places other than yourself. You are the source of most of your intellectual issues. Trying to compare yourself to me does you no good.
Just for fun, here is a list of all the times I've used all in this thread before this post:

Post #22: "I think the hypothesis is doing all of the work of the argument in both cases."

Post #26: "Specifically, you are arguing against P2 by concluding that the universe always existed, and all they would have to do is say in reply is that scientists have calculated an age for the universe."

Post #36a: "So if you can't talk with enough precision about that premise, then it's not at all clear that you're adequately prepared to criticize it."

Post #36b: "All you've done so far is try to insist that you're right without addressing the substance of anything put forward."

Post #38: "Set aside your defensive reflex that assumes that you're definitely right all the time."

Post #51a: "Your intellectual failures all come from the fact that you seem utterly incapable of understanding most arguments."

Post #51b: "And you will do all sorts of things to defend your desired conclusion, such as introduce new arguments, play whataboutism games (which is what you're doing here), and otherwise intellectually shutting down."

Post #54: "And thinking that a basic syllogism is all you need to use to accomplish what all sorts of minds have been working on for millennia show just how little intellectual humility you have."

Post #57 (Note that I've added some text because LOL can't sentence): "All I need to prove that is MB-P1 and MB-P2 [do not imply MB-C]."

Post #58: "And it's all as meaningless as your ramblings."

Post #64a: "While you spend all this time criticizing me, it stems from the simple fact that you don't understand yourself."

Post #64b: "You want to make it about me, and all the time this is really just about you."

Post #74: "And you're welcome to reject all modern psychology and pretend that the human mind is logical if you choose."

Post #79a: "You should tell all those people about their intellectual dishonesty."

Post #79b: "Just LOL at all of this."

Post #95: "If you've been paying any attention at all over the years, you would be unsurprised by my understanding and perspective of human belief structures and the role of formal logic in the development of those beliefs."

Post #98a: "As I said, you're free to willfully misinterpret and misunderstand statements all you want."

Post #98b (LOL can't sentence again): "But the all of the available evidence points in one direction."

Post #102: "Incidentally, my position has been pretty clear throughout my posting that I don't think that all beliefs are ultimately justifiable in any formal sense."

Post #107a: "You commit all sorts of logical fallacies."

Post #107b: "Leave it to MB to focus all of his efforts on the *least* controversial part of my perspective (that not all beliefs are formally derived) and think he's done something grand."

Post #111: "His interpretation of this is that therefore all my beliefs about God are irrational (or at least illogical -- though I'm not sure if/how he might distinguish between the concepts of "rational" and "logical") and that I've abandoned Creation (presumably, meaning that I have rejected the claim that God created the universe)."

Post #118: " I've posted a link to his four most recent threads (ignoring this one), and they all go down the same path."


So please, lecture me about intellectual honesty and reading comprehension. Go ahead. Challenge me to an evidence-based recollection of the events of this thread. It's going to go soooooooo well for you.

Last edited by Aaron W.; 09-18-2020 at 02:52 PM.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote