Dr. Lane Craig using Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel argument

130 posts / 0 new

Mon, 06/22/2020 - 09:23

(Reply to #31) #32

TheFlyingPig

Was it a guess based on mathematics ? If it wasn’t then what could it have been ?
Does the 2nd law abide by mathematical principles and therefore provide a model for physical Reality ?
Is the Logic used in this example a mathematical model of Reality ?
Where do the Laws of Nature come from ?

Mon, 06/22/2020 - 15:44

(Reply to #32) #33

Nyarlathotep

TheFlyingPig - Was it a guess

TheFlyingPig - Was it a guess based on mathematics ? If it wasn’t then what could it have been ?

The guess was based on observation.
----------------------------

TheFlyingPig - Does the 2nd law abide by mathematical principles...

Of course not.
----------------------------

TheFlyingPig - Is the Logic used in this example a mathematical model of Reality ?
----------------------------

f = ma is not logical.
----------------------------

TheFlyingPig - Where do the Laws of Nature come from ?

Well in this case it came from a guess by a human (Newton). Several different posters have given you more or less this same answer. How many more times are you planning on asking that question?

Sat, 06/27/2020 - 06:54

(Reply to #33) #34

TheFlyingPig

Newton - Philosophiæ

Newton - Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) .

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle.

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Paul A. M. Dirac, who made crucial early contributions to both quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.

Argue with those guys mate .( You did notice that Newton was a mathematician and his book was on Mathematical Principles , yup it’s true )

Sat, 06/27/2020 - 07:05

(Reply to #34) #35

Nyarlathotep

TheFlyingPig - You did notice

TheFlyingPig - You did notice that Newton was a mathematician and his book was on Mathematical Principles , yup it’s true

Yeah, I've actually read it (English translation). And no, Newton didn't derive his 2nd law with logic, he guessed it. These things always come from guesses; as it is presumably impossible to derive them logically.

When a mathematician guesses something, that doesn't make it mathematics: it is still a guess.

Sat, 06/27/2020 - 09:49

(Reply to #35) #36

TheFlyingPig

And if it cannot be validated

And if it cannot be validated by mathematics then it would have remained unproven .
To say it was a guess is a misrepresentation of the history . Guess means he had no evidence of any sort to base his intuition on which is not true
.Other scientists of the times - Hooke- Kepler - Galileo provided enough evidence for Newton to trust his intuition and the rest is history , mathematical history that is .

Sat, 06/27/2020 - 14:44

(Reply to #36) #37

Nyarlathotep

TheFlyingPig - And if it

TheFlyingPig - And if it cannot be validated by mathematics then it would have remained unproven.

f = ma has never been proven.
Presumably, f = ma can not be proved.
Empirically, f = ma has been shown to be wrong (so it's a damn good thing that it can't be proved!)

Don't really know what else to say to someone who thinks f = ma has been proven. If you really believe that; perhaps you could post the proof here?

Sat, 06/27/2020 - 16:44

(Reply to #37) #38

TheFlyingPig

Ok sorry . I was under the

Ok sorry . I was under the impression that Newton’s 2nd law was used in practical applications in our everyday life and therefore I assumed it must have been accepted as a constant and unchanging law of the physical world . My apologies.

Sat, 06/27/2020 - 21:54

(Reply to #38) #39

Nyarlathotep

TheFlyingPig - I was under

TheFlyingPig - I was under the impression that Newton’s 2nd law was used in practical applications in our everyday life...

Being practical, does not make something logical. For example: pi = 3.14 is very practical, but I'm sure you know that it isn't quite true.
----------------------

TheFlyingPig - ...I assumed it must have been accepted as a constant and unchanging law of the physical world.

Many other users have been trying to point out this dubious assumption of yours for some time now. Well at least you got there!

Sat, 06/27/2020 - 08:51

(Reply to #39) #40

Sheldon

"Richard Feynman, a Nobel

"Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle.

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

You have admitted you haven't a shred of objective evidence for any deity. You also claimed it's irrational to expect science to evidence a deity, so I am wondering what exactly is the point of all these quotes from scientists? Especially since Feynman was speaking metaphorically, as he was an atheist.

As for Paul A. M. Dirac

"If we are honest — and scientists have to be — we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards — in heaven if not on earth — all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins."

So you're the one arguing with them, as they were both atheists.

Sat, 06/27/2020 - 09:28

(Reply to #40) #41

TheFlyingPig

Once more unto the breach

Once more unto the breach -Existence's manifesting from a point one-trillionth the diameter of a proton in 10^-36 seconds works for me .

What does religion have to do with God ?

Sat, 06/27/2020 - 11:06

(Reply to #41) #42

Sheldon

@The Flying Pig

How does any of that evidence a deity?

Sat, 06/27/2020 - 12:25

(Reply to #42) #43

TheFlyingPig

God has as much validation

God has as much validation for the cause of creation as anything else that is put forward as a candidate . What’s your candidate ?
After all , bringing forth the whole of creation out of “nothing “ counts as something that only a supernatural being could accomplish . Of course I could be wrong but I haven’t seen any other candidates that explain creation . Growing limbs is so underwhelming for evidence , the whole of creation out of nothing is more like it .

Sat, 06/27/2020 - 15:52

(Reply to #43) #44

Sheldon

TheFlyingPig "God has as much

TheFlyingPig "God has as much validation for the cause of creation as anything else

Well that doesn't remotely answer my question, it's just another unevidenced claim. I ask again:

How does any of your quote mining evidence a deity? What evidence can you demonstrate that there is ANY validity for an extant deity, or that it created anything?

Sat, 06/27/2020 - 16:25

(Reply to #44) #45

TheFlyingPig

Existence's manifesting from

Existence's manifesting from a point one-trillionth the diameter of a proton in 10^-36 seconds . Any explanation ?
I don’t need to demonstrate anything . Creation is proof enough for me . If you have a better answer then I’m all ears .

Sun, 06/28/2020 - 02:47

(Reply to #45) #46

Sheldon

TheFlyingPig "I don’t need

TheFlyingPig "I don’t need to demonstrate anything, "

Yes you do, as this is a debate forum, not a church pulpit. The fact is you can't demonstrate anything, as you have already admitted. So you continue to resort to appeal to ignorance fallacies, and god of the gaps polemic.

TheFlyingPig "Creation is proof enough for me ."

Then explain how this extant material universe remotely evidences any deity or anything supernatural? Bare claims are meaningless after all, despite how pleased you seem with yourself, to pin your belief on them and naught else.

Sun, 06/28/2020 - 07:14

(Reply to #46) #47

TheFlyingPig

Again , I don’t need to

Again , I don’t need to explain anything . Creation is proof enough for me . When I see a pie sat on the counter I don’t need to prove that it had a maker , it’s self evident to me . All things from the point of creation point back to a creator .
So ,what’s YOUR explanation for -
“Existence's manifesting from a point one-trillionth the diameter of a proton in 10^-36 seconds “ You attack a point of view that you disagree with and yet offer no answer to the question . What’s your answer ?

What has the Church got to do with the point at hand ? Absolutely nothing !

Sun, 06/28/2020 - 08:13

(Reply to #47) #48

Sheldon

TheFlyingPig "Creation is

TheFlyingPig "Creation is proof enough for me"

So you have said, ad nauseam, but this is a debate forum, so please explain how the extant universe evidences any deity?

TheFlyingPig "When I see a pie sat on the counter I don’t need to prove that it had a maker
"

We know pies are made as an objective fact, we can see recipes that explain how they are made, and factories where they are created,, so that's an asinine analogy.

TheFlyingPig "You attack a point of view that you disagree with and yet offer no answer to the question . What’s your answer ?"

Of course I do, since you have nothing beyond bare assertions based on known logical fallacies, and I disbelieve your claims for that reason. I have given my answer, and it remains the same.

I ask again, please explain how a gap in our current knowledge for the origin of the universe is evidence for any deity?

Sun, 06/28/2020 - 09:05

(Reply to #48) #49

TheFlyingPig

“Existence's manifesting from

“Existence's manifesting from a point one-trillionth the diameter of a proton in 10^-36 seconds “
Of course A First Cause - Creator - God is a perfectly logical answer to the question above . That doesn’t make it true but it is manifestly logically .
Denying my belief is fine but you haven’t provided an alternative candidate for the question above , all you have done is provide a negative .
Whats your candidate for the beginning of creation ? I get it that you don’t believe what I believe so tell us what you believe , give us a positive rather than a negative . Tell us what you are FOR rather than what you are AGAINST .

Thu, 06/18/2020 - 04:19

(Reply to #49) #50

Cognostic

@The flying pig: Where do

@The flying pig: Where do laws of nature come from? We invent them. We observe the world / universe around us, and when we see things that appear to be common place everywhere we look, we call it a law.

You do understand that the laws of Physics break down beyond Planck time? Do you understand that "Laws" are "DESCRIPTIVE" and not "PRESCRIPTIVE?" Are you aware of the fact that there are two different sets of laws of Nature? (What does that say about their "Law Nature?"

"Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of Laws of Nature. On one account, the Regularity Theory, Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is. On the other account, the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the “principles” which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world “obeys” the Laws of Nature. This seemingly innocuous difference marks one of the most profound gulfs within contemporary philosophy, and has quite unexpected, and wide-ranging, implications."

When you say "Laws of Nature," what in the hell are you talking about? Laws of Nature are simply ways things behave that appear to be law-like.

Thu, 06/18/2020 - 04:52

(Reply to #50) #51

TheFlyingPig

So you disagree with the

So you disagree with the Stephen Hawking Center for Theoretical Cosmology who say “ The physical laws that govern the Universe prescribe how an initial state evolves with time “ ? Oh , and where did these descriptive / prescriptive Laws of Nature come from ?

Thu, 06/18/2020 - 05:05

(Reply to #51) #52

Whitefire13

Sailingswine...

This CTC...?!?!

http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/about/

Centre for Theoretical Cosmology (CTC) was established by Professor Stephen Hawking in 2007. It exists to advance the scientific understanding of our Universe, taking forward the vision of its founder. Located in the award-winning Centre for Mathematical Sciences, CTC builds on Cambridge University's tradition of excellence in theoretical research.

Edited
For clarity.... “that’s a hint” to go find the quote yourself, that may have been “mined”
and most likely, “copy & pasted” -
You may learn something in your quest.

Thu, 06/18/2020 - 08:20

(Reply to #52) #53

TheFlyingPig

Keep reading , you may learn

Keep reading , you may learn something , but then again probably not .

Thu, 06/18/2020 - 08:25

(Reply to #53) #54

Whitefire13

You mean the rest:

Many of the key ideas in modern cosmology and gravitational theory originated in DAMTP. The subject retains its vibrancy here, encompassing one of DAMTP's biggest groups, with theorists continuing to make leading contributions internationally. The group is supported by large UK and European Research Council grants and operates the COSMOS supercomputer. The
Centre for Theoretical Cosmology aims to establish this centre of excellence within Cambridge in the longer term, operating in innovative ways and encouraging new thinking on some of the most challenging problems in science.

FIND your “quote mine” and LINK

Sat, 06/20/2020 - 04:32

(Reply to #54) #55

TheFlyingPig

I don’t need to do your work

I don’t need to do your work .
What’s relevant is the statement “ physical laws that govern the Universe prescribe “. Makes sense to me . Probably not to you .

Sat, 06/20/2020 - 05:53

(Reply to #55) #56

Whitefire13

Cute ;). Now it’s just a

Cute ;). Now it’s just a “statement”....and a relevant “statement” says you.

Sun, 06/21/2020 - 18:06

(Reply to #56) #57

TheFlyingPig

So you disagree with the

So you disagree with the statement then ?

Thu, 06/18/2020 - 08:30

(Reply to #57) #58

Cognostic

@TheFlyingPig:

@TheFlyingPig:
1. They are observable characteristics.
2. We invented them to describe the universe around us.
3. They do not apply in all situations.
4. They are descriptive and not prescriptive. (Agree the topic is debated.)
5. As the universe around us changes. so will our natural laws.
6. Didn't you know? Stephen Hawking was wrong about a shitload of stuff.

Finally, regardless of which side of the fence you fall on... This is an atheist forum and not a philosophy or science forum. (HINT: You might want to go and spout your nonsense elsewhere.)

Sat, 06/20/2020 - 04:21

(Reply to #58) #59

TheFlyingPig

So If Atheism isn’t a

So If Atheism isn’t a philosophy then what is it ? If Atheism doesn’t ground itself in empirical science then what is it grounded in ? Sounds to me that you are making it up to suit your biases.
You stated categorically that the Laws of Nature , which you and the rest are clueless to origin , was Descriptive . So what Prescribed the Laws ( if you have a better description then feel free ) that are Describing Reality ?

Sun, 06/21/2020 - 04:38

(Reply to #59) #60

Sheldon

So If Atheism isn’t a

So If Atheism isn’t a philosophy then what is it ?

Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in a deity or deities.

If Atheism doesn’t ground itself in empirical science then what is it grounded in ?

Atheism no more needs grounding than any other disbelief, for example what is your disbelief in garden fairies or Santa Claus "grounded in "?

Sounds to me that you are making it up to suit your biases.

That sounds like a pithy perfidious attempt to deflect your own bias in choosing to believe in one deity over all the others, without being able to demonstrate any objective evidence for the belief.

You stated categorically that the Laws of Nature , which you and the rest are clueless to origin, was Descriptive

As are you, as a theists you have no more idea about the origins of physical laws than anyone else, you just like to assert you do, without any evidence to support the claim.

So what Prescribed the Laws....that are Describing Reality ?

What a particularly stupid question, given you just stated we don't know. Further more the question is dishonest, as we don't know that anything did prescribe them, this is just another assumption theists love to make, in an attempt to prop up belief in a deity from an unevidenced and archaic superstition and its risible creation myth.

Why not just start by offering the best evidence, and or most compelling reason you think exists for the deity you believe is real? Instead of endless assumptions, and argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies that demand atheists give an alternative to the unevidenced claims of religions and their creation myths.

Sun, 06/21/2020 - 18:27

(Reply to #60) #61

TheFlyingPig

So Atheism is not a

So Atheism is not a philosophy? - Brilliant
So Atheism has no foundation , no grounds - Brilliant x2
I think we can leave it at that

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.

You are here

Pages