The evolution of personality

Originally posted by Darfius
Your flaws include placing words in other people's mouths, and then reasoning fallaciously upon these words.

Admittedly so. Sometimes. And not that time. But it's fun to watch you dance.

I don't recall claiming that th I'm a poor student. Or you're a poor teacher. One of the two.

So the universe is a spiritual entitity then? You get more religious everyday, Bennett.

I didn’t say that either, did I? I said the universe contains these entities. I’ve already defined for you what the universe is, in another thread. Go look it up.

Are you equating 'contains' to 'is'? Why do we have any reason to believe the universe isn't physical?

What part of ‘contains’ don’t you understand? What reason do we have to believe the universe is physical? Not simply because it contains physical entities, surely. The universe also contains abstract entities, and mental entities. What follows from this: nothing at all.

Name me a physical entitity that wasn't the effect of a prior cause.

How is this relevant? I am not claiming that the universe is a physical entity. The point I was making is that this is not a scientific principle. This is a metaphysical claim on your part, and irrelevant to my claims about the universe.

Prove it. I've learned atheists lie a lot. Not accusing you, but I'm not as gullible anymore.

Go read through your own drivel, this has been pointed out to you by Starrman and I and others on numerous occasions.

Prove it. Name me some scientists. Ad populum

Look up Quantum Mechanics and Randomness, Darfius. You’re in college now, you should learn to do your homework. Then look up the EPR paradox. Then look up John Bell (he’s a physicist), and Bell’s inequality. After this, you will be on your way to understanding randomness as it occurs in QM, and you will realize that the vast majority of theoretical physicist reject determinism in the physical domain.

You're right. It also wouldn't follow that it should. Where are we at then? Someone's bias has to win out. I'll go with the one that makes more sense.

Well, if you think that being subject to causal laws is sufficient for the principle to apply, then either you apply it to the spiritual or you’ll be being inconsistent. Consistency isn’t your strong suit, however, so I fear you’ll take this option.


No. God's decision to be sad causes Him to be sad. I couldn't force God to do anything and it would be amusing to watch me try (if I were suicidal).

If God’s decision to be sad causes him to be sad, then God is subject to causal forces he himself originates. Hence, he still is subject to causal laws. Hence your position is shown to be as wack as it initially appeared.

Why'd you say 'so' as if that followed?

‘Cause it does. If spiritual entities can both be affected by causes and be causes themselves (think of your eternal soul, which I'm sure you believe can both be affected by God and exert some causal force of it's own), then they are subject to causal laws (‘cause that is just what it means to be subject to causal laws, to exist within the causal order).

Your argument is "If God can be eternal, then so can the universe! Even though the evidence points to the contrary!"

There is no evidence to the contrary, Darfius. There is absolutely not one shred of evidence indicating that the universe has not always been. There is evidence that the universe was very small at one point. I am sure you know the difference between being small and not being there at all, don’t you?

Tell me, bbarr, if the singularity was eternal, what was different about the point in "eternity" that caused the Big Bang? Were things building up from eternity past?

I haven’t claimed that the singularity was eternal. That’s you making stuff up again.

I'm afraid I'm a poor student.

Yeah, well, your brand of religion trains people not to think, so don’t blame yourself.

I didn’t say that either, did I? I said the universe contains these entities. I’ve already defined for you what the universe is, in another thread. Go look it up.

You haven't been clear, obviously. I may not know as many 'ads' as you, but I know when someone makes their position clear.

What part of ‘contains’ don’t you understand? What reason do we have to believe the universe is physical? Not simply because it contains physical entities, surely. The universe also contains abstract entities, and mental entities. What follows from this: nothing at all.

Mental entities? So you admit the mind is different than the brain, then? And the abstract is the result of us, not inherently in the universe.

How is this relevant? I am not claiming that the universe is a physical entity. The point I was making is that this is not a scientific principle. This is a metaphysical claim on your part, and irrelevant to my claims about the universe.

Everyone knows all effects have causes, Bennett. Quit being childish.

Go read through your own drivel, this has been pointed out to you by Starrman and I and others on numerous occasions.

No, it hasn't.

Look up Quantum Mechanics and Randomness, Darfius. You’re in college now, you should learn to do your homework. Then look up the EPR paradox. Then look up John Bell (he’s a physicist), and Bell’s inequality. After this, you will be on your way to understanding randomness as it occurs in QM, and you will realize that the vast majority of theoretical physicist reject determinism in the physical domain.

Is that not metaphysical as well? Or am I missing something?

Well, if you think that being subject to causal laws is sufficient for the principle to apply, then either you apply it to the spiritual or you’ll be being inconsistent. Consistency isn’t your strong suit, however, so I fear you’ll take this option.

He made the causal laws. He's not subject to anything He doesn't want to be.

If God’s decision to be sad causes him to be sad, then God is subject to causal forces he himself originates. Hence, he still is subject to causal laws. Hence your position is shown to be as wack as it initially appeared.

That makes no sense. The universe can't think or do, so it's subject to laws. God can do as He pleases because He has intelligence and power.

‘Cause it does. If spiritual entities can both be affected by causes and be causes themselves (think of your eternal soul, which I'm sure you believe can both be affected by God and exert some causal force of it's own), then they are subject to causal laws (‘cause that is just what it means to be subject to causal laws, to exist within the causal order).

God is not subject to something unless He deems it. Surely there are exceptions for an entity like that.

There is no evidence to the contrary, Darfius. There is absolutely not one shred of evidence indicating that the universe has not always been. There is evidence that the universe was very small at one point. I am sure you know the difference between being small and not being there at all, don’t you?

Wtf. Are you aware of what the singularity is, Bennett?

I haven’t claimed that the singularity was eternal. That’s you making stuff up again.

Wtf. First you say there's no evidence the singularity wasn't eternal and then you say you never claimed it was. Take a freaking stance, Bennett. Make it crystal clear.

Yeah, well, your brand of religion trains people not to think, so don’t blame yourself.


I'd be more than happy to take respective IQ tests. Let's stick to insulting the argument and not the person.

I'd be more than happy to take respective IQ tests.

Unless you lie somewhere above 0.01% of test-takers I would crush you. I hold pretty strong priors that bbar could do the same.

That said, IQ doesn't count for much once you get into my league. The test lacks a certain quality called "discriminatory validity." Once you get out far enough on the tail, IQ only says either that you are way above average or way below average.

So please, stop posing. Many of us here are very smart according to standardized tests. Claims like this from freshman at a mediocre state school (who, by the way, are convinced that man-angels built the pyramids) are not taken seriously. Of course, if you stick to substance, you don't have a chance either, but at least continue pretending.

Awaiting all hell for this post. Good night.

Originally posted by Darfius
I didn’t say that either, did I? I said the universe contains these entities. I’ve already defined for you what the universe is, in another thread. Go look it up.

You haven't been clear, obviously. I may not know as many 'ads' ...[text shortened]... tests. Let's stick to insulting the argument and not the person.[/b]

You haven't been clear, obviously. I may not know as many 'ads' as you, but I know when someone makes their position clear.

My position has been consistent throughout: No version of the cosmological argument favors theism vs. atheism. Is that clear enough for you? How many times do I need to repeat this before it penetrates your skull?

Mental entities? So you admit the mind is different than the brain, then? And the abstract is the result of us, not inherently in the universe.

Yes, I think the mind is different from the brain. I think that consciousness is a non-physical property, and hence that materialism is false. I am also an atheist. This is why it is stupid of you to equate atheism with materialism. Not all atheists are materialists. Your claim that abstract entities result from us is something you would need to argue for. Please explain how the number 2 (an abstract entity in good standing) resulted from us.

Everyone knows all effects have causes, Bennett. Quit being childish.

Of course all effects have causes, and by definition. An effect is just that which results from a cause. This is not only banal but completely irrelevant to my claim above. I am claiming (for the n-teenth time now) that there is no good reason to assume that the universe is an effect of any prior cause.

Is that not metaphysical as well? Or am I missing something?

You are missing something. Do your homework. The Bell inequalities are evidence that not everything physical has causal antecedents sufficient to bring it about. The orthodox position in QM is that the evidence supports the existence of robust metaphysical randomness. Hence, the orthodox position on QM is contrary to your absurd contention that it is a scientific principle that everything physical is caused.

He made the causal laws. He's not subject to anything He doesn't want to be.

This is false. He is subject to his own character. His character causes Him to act in various ways. Hence, he is subject to causal laws. Hence, he exists within the causal order. Hence, your original distinction between the physical and spiritual regarding causality fails, and your position regarding the cosmological argument accordingly fails.

That makes no sense. The universe can't think or do, so it's subject to laws. God can do as He pleases because He has intelligence and power.

Just ‘cause you can’t make sense of something doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense. You claimed above that God can exert causal forces upon himself. This entails that God is subject to causal forces He originates. This places Him square within the causal order.



God is not subject to something unless He deems it. Surely there are exceptions for an entity like that.

Irrelevant to the discussion. You have already admitted that God is subject to some causal forces (and you are committed to the claim that other spiritual entities are subjects of all sorts of causal forces). Hence, spiritual entities are properly construed as entities subject to causal laws. Hence, your original principle applies equally to spiritual and physical entities, on pain of inconsistency.

Wtf. Are you aware of what the singularity is, Bennett?

A singularity is a geometrical point of no extension and infinite density. Do you know what a singularity is, Darfius? Here’s a hint: A singularity is not nothing, it is something. Hence, evidence for a singularity is not evidence that the universe came from nothing (as I’ve been claiming time and time again). Please refer back to the NASA and UCLA links I provided in our previous discussion.

Wtf. First you say there's no evidence the singularity wasn't eternal and then you say you never claimed it was. Take a freaking stance, Bennett. Make it crystal clear.

My position is as I explained it to you previously. Read what people freaking write, Darfius. On questions of the origins of the universe, the proper position is agnosticism. There is no evidence that the singularity had always existed, nor that is came into existence at some point, nor that it was a stage in a cosmic cycle of expansion and contraction. I’m not sure why you fundamentalist folk think you need to have a position on every question, even when the evidence is silent.

I'd be more than happy to take respective IQ tests. Let's stick to insulting the argument and not the person.

You know what, you’d lose that bet.

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]You haven't been clear, obviously. I may not know as many 'ads' as you, but I know when someone makes their position clear.

My position has been consistent throughout: No version of the cosmological argument favors theism vs. atheism. Is that clear enough for you? How many times do I need to repeat this before it penetrates your skull?

M ...[text shortened]... stick to insulting the argument and not the person.

You know what, you’d lose that bet.
[/b]

I am claiming (for the n-teenth time now) that there is no good reason to assume that the universe is an effect of any prior cause.

Please refer to my thread "Is the universe an effect of any prior cause."