Jump to content

A Debate With A Non-abrahamic/non-aligned Theist


Recommended Posts

I am in a debate with another a theist, except this theist rejects Abrahamic-religions and subscribes to a view of god of a like the God of Einstein and looks to String Theory for his answers. (All without the Hadron Supercollider, which isn't schedule to be online til late 2007 early 2008.) Apparently, my opponent has a degree in chemical engineering and has a solid grasp of physics and basic science. But I have seen little evidence of it.


The meat of the debate starts here.



Einstein knew that forces of nature can be measured in the four dimensions that humans are capable of perceiving. Einstein also knew that supernatural forces exist, and they are operational in the many dimensions of the universe that humans are incapable of perceiving. Your mind is trapped by four measly dimensions.


So here’s the good news. God loves you, and he doesn’t even care if you don’t love him back.




If we can prove mathematically that the universe runs on more than four dimensions, and that forces we cannot measure are also operational, it means there is stuff going on all around us that would appear as supernatural force if we could perceive the effect.


Well we go back and forth, and I get into a conversation about 2nd Law Thermodynamics, open/closed universes, and infinite regression with another guy on the board. Because of my discussion with this other guy, KenTX thinks he's has me. Although, he fails to explain why.


Then KenTX posts:



The force cannot be measured by you, because your world is limited by four dimensions. The force is natural in the universe, but if you can perceive it, it can appear as supernatural to you because of your limited mind.


The force conforms to the reality of the universe, and can operate outside of your limited laws of Newtonian physics.


Once you finally get beyond childish definitions of natural and supernatural, you realize there are dimensions in the universe you cannot perceive. There are forces in the universe you cannot measure. As a matter of fact, the forces of the universe could be “infinite”. And these infinite forces could be operational right in front of your nose, without you being able to measure or perceive their presence.


So I had enough and I posted:


Suspect Device:

Musings on Ken and God (none / 0)

I have to admit it, but Ken is trying my patience. Through my discussion on this thread with him, I am finding that he exhibits the same like intolerance that the religiously-dogmatic do in Ken's frustration to argue his "force." So I retract, calling him a deist. A deist does not have dogmas. But Ken, does. It may be a personal dogma, but a dogma nonetheless. Where he begs Einstein's authority as the final word in this matter, Einstein warns against a personal god. Ken has in fact, violated this authority, ironically, the very same authority he begs.


But I can't help to empathize for the guy. The search and the proving of god is a frustrating task. Ken, rightly so, has abandoned the dogmas of Abrahamic religions and the supernatural and has turned to science for that proof. I think that's a great step. However, his argument lacks specificity. And this is crucial. While I agree with him that there are more dimensions then we can sense and there are probably forces at play in the universe we may never discover (which I don't know, we discovered much we didn't know with super-coliders showing us other basic constituents of matter like neutrinos, muons, quarks, etc), it still gives me no good reason to believe that this force (which I have dubbed kForce) does indeed exist. And that's the inherent problem when you ground a supernatural proposition into a naturalistic explanation. You deny the Law of Idenity. And this is not my immature concept, it is in fact Aristotle:


Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.


So far the only properties of kForce are this: a. it appears supernatural, but is natural; b. exists in another dimension; c. can not be measured or tested. These are Ken's definitions of kForce. He's had plenty of time to work on this definition, but instead has not extended, qualified, or expanded the definition of what kForce is. I am not the one that has a problem with his ontology. In fact, I have done nothing but try to help him define what he means by asking him to be more specific. (Which, one does by asking questions.) In fact, I drafted up a way he could do this (revised):

___________________________ _



Ken proposes a force in the Universe that is mathematically predicted, resides in another dimension, would be perceived to be supernatural and yet is really a natural force, but can not be measured. Therefore is existence can neither be confirmed or dismissed. Ken does not indicate if this force is in fact, GOD. Ken has not indicated if this force is sentient. Ken has not indicated if this force is omnipotent. Ken has not indicated what is relevancy would be. Ken has not indicated anything specific about this force (ie, kForce).


A.If he can not confirm his predictions about kForce, then he will have to qualify what good is this mathematically oddity to our corner of the universe.


B. Define what kind of "mathematics" he is using.


C. Define what this other dimension is like. What aspects of this other dimension lend credibility to his kForce? What can be specifically said about this other dimension that may help us to locate it?


D. If such force is described in mathematics, yet resides in another dimension, how does Ken propose to reach this other dimension and test for it?


E. Having his sublime and thorough understanding about particle physics and other dimensions, I am sure he realizes that our instruments and our tools are calibrated to our spacetime. What kinds of instruments does Ken propose to build? How does he propose to calibrate them to this other dimension?


F. If Ken gets to this other dimension, has his instruments calibrated, how does Ken propose to show that this force is GOD? How does he propose to confirm that this force is sentient? How is this force omnipotent?


G. Given the fact that kForce resides in another dimension, how and in what way is even relevant to our own? (Alphasmookie has asked this same question, for which you have ignored.)

___________________________ _


These are specific questions about kForce and specific technological challenges in order to establish that kForce exists. Successful evidential proof for A will only increase the subsequent burden of proof for problems B thru E. For F, even more evidence will be required and this evidence must be of a high quality because the level of skepticism is necessarily greater.


Ken has claimed by fiat that his kForce exists because I agree with him that other dimensions exist and that we do not know all the forces that may be at play in the universe, as he puts it "under my nose." But I've identify the problems with his ontology and because we are in agreement with these two issues, he thinks this is an admission that kForce exists. In fact, the only thing Ken can do, and has done, is make an argument from ignorance. While, whatever math he is using (which he's never identified considering he has a science background), may state the possibility of such a thing, its beyond empirical demonstration. The only thing left, is to argue is agnosticism. By probability we can show anything is possible. If I do a probability study on the likeliness of opera-signing oak-trees, would this prove conclusively that such a thing exists? No. Its the same with square-circles. They are not in uniformity with nature, so rightly so we dismiss such a things.


So we come back to it, as I posted in my original statement. Attempts at reconciling the supernatural to nature is a fruitless exercise. Every time single time you have turn to materialism, you've only describe another facet or aspect of the universe, and in all these cases, your describing matter and energy and have chipped away further away the supernatural.


Since I posted the above monster-quote, he keeps talking about how hes going to cut me up and force me to leave the Young Turk Forums, but has not posted his response yet. He has also avoided answering anyone else's likewise questions that mirror my own, even those of other theists!


Anyway, what do you think? Am I missing something? Seems to me, if this guy is as intelligent as he claims to be, he would have at least started on better premises. Don't get me wrong, I am not looking to defeat him in this "debate" or discussion or whatever it is, but its damn frustrating when you meet people like this that are unwilling prove their argument, and spend the rest of their time waging the finger like a dad and condensending to you in the process.


So, I am interested in what you think. The Link is HERE


(I am Suspect Device on that site.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me a concensus here; was there really any need to read beyond his first paragraph?


Einstein knew that forces of nature can be measured in the four dimensions that humans are capable of perceiving.


Fair enough; been proven as conclusively as anything can be in science.


Einstein also knew that supernatural forces exist


Supernatural forces exist within the natural universe? Doesn't "supernatural" literally mean "beyond/removed from the natural world?"


and they are operational in the many dimensions of the universe that humans are incapable of perceiving.[/qutoe]


So, Einstein--as a human being--knew the nature and events of those dimensions beyond human perception?


Your mind is trapped by four measly dimensions.


I figure it's pretty safe to assume this guy's also a homo sapien, in which case... his aren't?


Nevermind the burden of proof for claiming the existence of a loving deity, I'd say he's got a hell of a mountain to climb from those first three sentences alone.


Edit: Bah, quote tags don't seem to want to work for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supernatural forces exist within the natural universe? Doesn't "supernatural" literally mean "beyond/removed from the natural world?"

No kidding. He's trying to goad me into some word game. Who knows? Funny thing Woody, he put himself in this situtation.


Nevermind the burden of proof for claiming the existence of a loving deity, I'd say he's got a hell of a mountain to climb from those first three sentences alone.

He is such a joke. I am no expert in cosmology barely a neophyte when it comes to philosophy. I don't make sophisticated arguments, but thats fine by me. I enjoy learning. But this guy? He's toonie-lunes.


He just posted again:

KenTX: I'm taking my time, and enjoying the game.

No doubt. But even Cricket games progress somewhere. This game of yours is going nowhere. But whatever, Ken. I hope you are enjoying yourself.


KenTX: So if we all agree that the universe is infinitely expansive, and driven by infinite forces that operate in dimensions we cannot understand,

Do we? Do we really know that the Universe is "infinitely expansive"? How do you base your conclusion on this. Which theory has proved this? Has Hawking? Has M-Theory? Hadron is not even online yet. I don't think that this is an issue settled in physics yet, Ken. You should know. Alphasigmookie, as you boasted, killed me in a discussion about Thermodynamics. Remember, we talked about heat death of the universe and the eventual collapse of the universe? If this is the case Ken, how can you claim that the universe is "infinitely expansive," if the universe will eventually collapse back on itself. Well?


Never mind. Getting a straight answer out of you is impossible.


For the sake of this "game" and for your continued "enjoyment" I'll go along with it. Yes, the universe is "infinitely expansive."


KenTX: then the next question is, how do we measure up to the universe? Are our minds infinitely limited in comparison with the vastness of the universe?

Oh my. Is this a problem in mind/brain duality? If so, do you wish to use a Cartesian or non-Carteisan model of mind/brain consciousness? And if you do not mean this, do you mean the actual physical size of our brains in relationship to the physical size of the universe? Or do you mean that the universe is unable to match our imagination. Has the universe, dreamt up chicken-pop-pies, Smurfs, girl-on-girl porn, the epics of the ancient greeks, or even the sonnets of Shakespeare?


Just exactly what do you mean Ken?


Thanks for your feedback Woody. That little bit about Einstein is actually true. I looked into more of what he believed/said. He didn't want to leave a universe to chance, or statitics/probablity. He was looking for concrete laws of the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah; though he was a long way from saying "Godidit," Einstein certainly didn't seem very fond of the idea of a "godless" universe. Even if it were a pantheistic or Deistic model, he *really* wanted there to be something more.


Or so it seems to me, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: Bah, quote tags don't seem to want to work for me.


That's because you have a misspelled one. It's the closing one after:


and they are operational in the many dimensions of the universe that humans are incapable of perceiving.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That shouldn't have any adverse effect on the other quote tags independent of that pair, though.


At any rate, thanks. Now if only the edit time hadn't expired several days ago. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've noticed that if one quote tag's messed up, then none of them work in a post on this board. Why? I don't know, but it's a consistant pattern.


And there's a limit to when you can edit something? That sucks. I totally didn't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.