Makes no sense at all

[Asimov]

What do you know about the Big Bang? In order to know anything about it you have to be seated in a position to see and to know. That position and those faculties with which you know have come by some power or order beyond yourself (you didn't give birth to yourself, you didn't endow yourself with rational faculties, etc). The Big Bang may or may not have happened. It cannot be an ultimate point of predication because it is not a predicate. It is merely an event. A predicate shows the relationship between facts. One class of facts (I am sure we agree) is historical events. You have not accounted for how we perceive the relationship between facts however. Furthermore, you haven't accounted for HOW we can distinguish one fact from another. You insist upon determining from within yourself the relationship between facts. The problem there is that unless you know exhaustively you cannot know certainly. Unless you know EVERYTHING you cannot know ANYTHIN! G truly. Because you CAN distinguish one fact from another does not show me you can explain HOW you can distinguish one fact for another.

 

 

I don't get what this guy is saying...can anyone translate?

[LloydDobler]

I don't get what this guy is saying...can anyone translate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's presuppositionalism again, he says 'goddidit'.

[NorthenSun]

C3PO could translate 6 million languages, but I am not sure if MORON was one of them.

[Ouroboros]

I don't get what this guy is saying...can anyone translate?

 

He's saying: we know shit, and he's in the same boat.

[Kryten]

Unless you know EVERYTHING you cannot know ANYTHIN!

 

I know enough to know that statement is stupid. (OR should I say stupi?)

[Ouroboros]

I know enough to know that statement is stupid.  (OR should I say stupi?)

Ye, yo shoul sa stupi...

[Antlerman]

I don't get what this guy is saying...can anyone translate?

It sounds like a long-winded, quasi intellectual way to make a point that we can't know for certain what science says, so how can we say we trust it. That then will follow into a ham-handed false argument that we should then trust a source of absolute knowledge, which he supposes he has in the Judeo/Christian God system.

 

It's bullshit. He operates within a closed system of absolutes, and cannot, ever, wrap his mind around us living with uncertainties at the base of our knowledge. It is him running from his confrontation with the void. He will never be able to understand the power of not boxing the universe into a 2000 year old, leather-bound book of Hebrew tribal myths. He's stuck on an endless Mobius strip. Poor fool.

 

"Unless he first disbelieves, he shall never be free, sayeth the blank." Sorry, just felt a little pulpit preaching in there

[Guest Joseph]

I don't get what this guy is saying...can anyone translate?

(quote in question found below...)

 

What do you know about the Big Bang?

 

What theories exist about it, limited mathematical principles based upon physical laws of reality which would reduce the known universe to the Singularity (which became the Big Bang).

 

In order to know anything about it you have to be seated in a position to see and to know.

 

No, you do not have to be "seated" in order to witness it. You can deduce what once was by what is left over. Through measuring the microwave background left over and several other ways (perhaps trying to find gravity waves) and other scientific methods, we can "see" what once was. Just as a geologist studies rock layers to see into the past we can study the universe around us and / or including the mathematical principles we have deduced up through time to draw very detailed understandings about what once was. We never actually "know" it as a fact however but Science is about quantitative data more-so than "fact" or "truth." I also want to put an asterick beside the statement "we never actually "know" it as fact" because if all evidence of science points to a given conclusion then it is an acceptable useage of the term to say it is (the theory in question) a "fact" while even at that very moment being a theory.

 

That position and those faculties with which you know have come by some power or order beyond yourself (you didn't give birth to yourself, you didn't endow yourself with rational faculties, etc).

 

Yes, my mom and dad got randy one night and fucked. Here I am. Rational faculties came about due to a natural process which has been guided by evolutionary adaptation up through the billions of years life has existed.

 

The Big Bang may or may not have happened.

 

This is either a lie or perhaps the author has not read enough science journals to actually have gained the knowledge. But to make the claim that the "Big Bang" did not take place is the same as making the claim that we do not exist. And I see a great fault in trying to claim he does not exist while writing this paragraph.

 

It cannot be an ultimate point of predication because it is not a predicate.

 

I am assuming here that he means "[The Big Bang] cannot be an ultimate point of a declaration of something self-evident; something that can be assumed as the basis for argument because it is not a declaration of something self-evident; something that can be assumed as the basis for argument because it is not a declaration of something self-evident."

 

If this is what he means then he has a few problems with this lunatic of a statement:

1. He has falsely labeled the Big Bang event as non-predication when in fact it is self-evident. The universe's existence, the background microwave radiation left over, as well as numerous other points of science demonstrate that the Big Bang can be an ultimate point of a declaration of something self-evident...inthat it demonstrates why/when the universe came into being from the singularity.

 

2. His statement is tautological at best. "A non-predication is a non predication." If he had actually defined the Big Bang correctly (he didn't) then his argument would fall prey to this conclusion as well. Saddly he wasn't even intelligent enough to reach the level of a tautological statement. Sad, so very sad.

 

It is merely an event. A predicate shows the relationship between facts. One class of facts (I am sure we agree) is historical events. You have not accounted for how we perceive the relationship between facts however.

 

Red herring.

We do not need to account for the way we think nor the way we percieve the relationship between facts in order to have them. Such would be a discussion of perhaps brain-organ physiology which is not something that even needs to enter the discussion at all. The Big Bang event is demonstrated in the universe itself and by such it is a point of predication upon which the existence of the universe can be based.

 

Furthermore, you haven't accounted for HOW we can distinguish one fact from another.

 

Through language systems based upon relative arbitrarily assigned meanings to utterances developed through evolutionary and natural selective processes over many millions (if not billions) of years. Even animals have basic warnings within their calls which is a root of language. Also other primates have been taught language systems such as sign language so this demonstrates that we are not alone on our own world. Also, this is nothing more than another red herring thrown in to yet again distort the main subject, I address it only cause it is fun to show how dumb this guy is.

 

You insist upon determining from within yourself the relationship between facts.

 

The statement above stinks of nihilism.

 

Since that is all we have, you are either left with a viewpoint that all human endeavor is useless and meaningless or you look at the data and draw conclusions based upon it. Over the centuries our ability to separate fact from fiction has developed better safe-guards and by such mythos and other disproven ideas have been moved to where they belong, in the minds of morons that won't question because they were taught not to.

 

The problem there is that unless you know exhaustively you cannot know certainly.

 

If you are making the claim that it takes absolute knowledge to have absolute certainty, then I agree. The problem is you are ignoring the ability to make a reasonable deduction based upon evidence gained through a finite knowledge level. While such conclusions could be a fault, all of humanity makes conclusions based upon limited knowledge. To say that you must find "cetainty" in order to "conclude" is to not understand science nor THEORY nor the scientific method to any degree what-so-ever.

 

Unless you know EVERYTHING you cannot know ANYTHIN! G

 

The mis-type here is priceless. However, the conclusion that you must have all knowledge or no knowledge at all is simply a false conclusion based upon the same faulty logic used in the entire paragraph. It is so easily seen as untrue that anyone with half a mind will see the utter and total nihilism found in such a claim. Hopelessness is the result and if mankind is lucky this guy has already removed himself from the gene pool if he actually believes such tripe.

 

...truly. Because you CAN distinguish one fact from another does not show me you can explain HOW you can distinguish one fact for another.

 

Red herring repeated as conclusion....wow, such a work of art it could be included in the idiot's hall of fame.

[Antlerman]

You insist upon determining from within yourself the relationship between facts.

 

The statement above stinks of nihilism.

 

Since that is all we have, you are either left with a viewpoint that all human endeavor is useless and meaningless or you look at the data and draw conclusions based upon it.  Over the centuries our ability to separate fact from fiction has developed better safe-guards and by such mythos and other disproven ideas have been moved to where they belong, in the minds of morons that won't question because they were taught not to.

That was a great response. Thanks for making my day!

[Ouroboros]

I took the liberty to reproduce an article from New Scientist (probably breaking some copyright laws by doing so, but I thought it was good read about Big Bang)

 

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam.../mg18725171.400

 

17 September 2005

From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

 

Martin Rees

It is astonishing that the "big bang" concept is now so firmly based. Cosmologists believe they know what our universe was like a few seconds after its beginning. The temperature was 10 billion degrees; radiation, protons, neutrons and "dark matter" were present everywhere in known proportions. And everything was cooling very smoothly: the deviations from uniformity amounted to no more than 1 part in 100,000. These statements are based on compelling and precise observations of "fossils" from that era: the radiation itself, and the proportions of hydrogen, helium and deuterium in the universe.

 

I am at least 99 per cent confident that the above inferences are correct. They are better established, and based on more precise evidence, than anything we can say about the early history of our Earth, or about the beginnings of life. As always in science, each advance brings a new set of great unknowns into sharper focus. But our uncovering of the big bang gives us cause to understand that these are not futile questions. Having discovered that we can grasp the basics of the origins of our universe, myriad other questions present themselves, questions that we can realistically hope to answer. And slowly but surely, against all odds, we are indeed managing to answer them.

 

Take, for example, our universe's apparent contradiction of one of the most powerful laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics. If our universe started off so "simple", how did it evolve into the immensely intricate cosmos we see around us, and of which we are part? At first sight this seems to contradict the principle that there is a tendency for structures to mess up and homogenise. But there is no paradox; the answer lies in the action of gravity. A region slightly denser than average would undergo extra deceleration because of the extra gravity. It would lag behind its surroundings more and more. Density contrasts would grow. It is by this process that the slight overdensities in the early universe act as the "seeds" for galaxies today. This theory, and its validation by observations, is another triumph for astronomers. Astronomers are hoping to uncover the details of how this process unfolds by looking for "young galaxies", objects so far away that their light set out when the universe was young and they had only recently formed.

 

There is plenty left to do, of course. We still don't know, for instance, what went bang and why. The question of why the universe was set up to expand in this way, and with this particular mix of ingredients, remains a challenge for science in the 21st century, and perhaps far beyond. The answer lies in the first tiny fraction of a microsecond, when the temperatures and densities were so high that the relevant physics is uncertain and not firmly grounded in experiment. But given our successes so far in addressing cosmological questions we can be confident about making further steps - probing the details of the very first microsecond, and perhaps even the nature of the big bang itself.

[Asimov]

...wow, such a work of art it could be included in the idiot's hall of fame.

 

 

I think this was the best explanation of what he is trying to say.

 

Joseph, thanks for that. When an explanation becomes so utterly confusing that the reader just gets a feeling that it is logically unsound, you know that something is wrong with what one believes. Unfortunately, that is not the case with my opponent.

 

He so ardently believes that he has the drop on me in this that he is actually resorting to condescension, and has done so throughout the debate.

 

I am assuming here that he means "[The Big Bang] cannot be an ultimate point of a declaration of something self-evident; something that can be assumed as the basis for argument because it is not a declaration of something self-evident; something that can be assumed as the basis for argument because it is not a declaration of something self-evident."

 

Joseph, what he means by that is that we need a point from where all information comes from, a point of ultimate predication.

 

I say that because the Big Bang was the beginning of time and space, that it is a point of predication from which all information (the observable universe) comes from. Since it is impossible to garner any information from "before" the big bang (a meaningless term anyways), then there is no reason to deduce that anything happened except the Big Bang...would you say I am correct in that assumption?

[Asimov]

Take, for example, our universe's apparent contradiction of one of the most powerful laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics. If our universe started off so "simple", how did it evolve into the immensely intricate cosmos we see around us, and of which we are part?

 

Han...I don't see how this is even true. How exactly can one state that a singularity of infinite density is "simple"??? Since "simple" and "complex" are basically vague descriptions based on imaginary concepts....it makes no sense that the Universe would defy the laws of physics in that sense.

 

It just seems like an oversimplification of the laws of thermodynamics, that's all.

[Ouroboros]

Han...I don't see how this is even true.  How exactly can one state that a singularity of infinite density is "simple"???  Since "simple" and "complex" are basically vague descriptions based on imaginary concepts....it makes no sense that the Universe would defy the laws of physics in that sense. 

 

It just seems like an oversimplification of the laws of thermodynamics, that's all.

I honestly don't know. Later in the article they state that we don't know what was before the first second of Big Bang, so it's impossible at the moment to know what it was, if it was simpe or complex, white hole, brane collision, who the heck knows at the moment.

 

I merely took a recent article from New Scientist to show that they are 99% sure Big Bang happened. Unfortunately I didn't copy in the name of the professor, and their site is down at the moment. As soon it's up again, I'll get the name reference in there too.

[Fweethawt]

I don't get what this guy is saying...can anyone translate?

 

Sounds to me like he's trying to say whatever the fuck he can in order to get that nasty feeling of cognitive dissonance to go away.

[Guest Joseph]

(snip for length only)

Joseph, what he means by that is that we need a point from where all information comes from, a point of ultimate predication.

 

Does he mean a "source point" of all energy/matter in the known universe?

If so then the Big Bang is it, so far as our knowledge goes. Anything else is blind "God diditism."

 

I say that because the Big Bang was the beginning of time and space, that it is a point of predication from which all information (the observable universe) comes from.

 

If a hyperverse exists then "time/space" may not have been generated with our universe. We could be a soap bubble reality within a foam of many more realities in a cosmic type of ocean. Then again if the brane-world theories pan out then a hyperverse would exist and our universe is just one of many that is the result of two branes collision. This would hold to a "many worlds" (AKA: many universes) idea of reality.

 

So, for all intents and purpose, from what is known at this time it is good enough to state that our reality/universe began at the big bang. Whether or not space-time is tied to our single universe (time-space dimensional reality) however is something we may not ever know for definite, the hyperverse might exist.

 

I see no problem with your argument however that all matter/energy comes from the "Big Bang" and/or Singularity as-it-were.

 

Since it is impossible to garner any information from "before" the big bang (a meaningless term anyways),

 

...unless hyperverse exists ;0). (Even then what-we-can-know might be tied to only-our-reality, so your claim is truthful enough.) If "time-space" is generated out of the Singularity's expanse (Big Bang) then the phrase "before the Big Bang" is without meaning entirely, as you state.

 

...then there is no reason to deduce that anything happened except the Big Bang...would you say I am correct in that assumption?

 

I would say that to claim that a deity is involved in the generation of the natural world would be to lay blame of our pitiful existence upon a supposed perfect entity and by such make it imperfect. Heh.

 

But on a more serious note, there is no reason to deduce that anything happened except the Big Bang of a natural Singularity, the problem is that our math breaks down and thus we do not honestly know what happened at such points. To claim a god did it however is to state something that goes unfounded, same as to claim that a pink unicorn did it.

[Mike D]

I don't get what this guy is saying...can anyone translate?

"I have a very weak yet simple point to make: We can't know anything so you cannot know the Big Bang happened. But if I can take this simplistic idea and turn it into something so horribly abstract and convoluted, yet give it the illusion of intelligence, maybe i'll be able to confuse this obviously articulate, intelligent, and confident guy ~ that I don't stand a chance in hell of outdebating, ~ enough that he'll concede and I can walk away with some dignity. It's worth a shot."

 

It seems to me that if a reasonably intelligent person has a valid point, they'll make sure it is understood by making it as clear and concise as possible, because it only stands to strengthen their argument. Else, they don't have one.

[Ouroboros]

It seems to me that if a reasonably intelligent person has a valid point, they'll make sure it is understood by making it as clear and concise as possible, because it only stands to strengthen their argument.  Else, they don't have one. 

Very true. Arguments that get lost in too many words, also can loose their meaning.

[Vigile]

It's bullshit.  He operates within a closed system of absolutes, and cannot, ever, wrap his mind around us living with uncertainties at the base of our knowledge.  It is him running from his confrontation with the void.  He will never be able to understand the power of not boxing the universe into a 2000 year old, leather-bound book of Hebrew tribal myths.  He's stuck on an endless Mobius strip.  Poor fool.

 

 

When he questions even the air we breathe he goes into Matrix mode. As another poster pointed out to him even those in the Matrix had signs that there was something influencing their world from outside. We have none. And to say that we don't know anything, it's all probabilities? I know the results of repeatable processes will be the same time after time after time. This I do in fact know.

 

When he jumped to "since we don't know anything, trust god," I almost fell out of my chair though. He even pointed out that "well, here you have to kinda sorta trust your senses I just told you you couldn't trust." What the hell is that? Oh, and I can't say "hell" or use ad homs, and I must keep a really, really, really open mind 'mkay. Who the hell does he think he is?

[Mr. Neil]

It's presuppositionalism again, he says 'goddidit'.

Pretty much. I'm beginning to notice that pretty much every Christian argument there is can be reduced to a simple appeal to ignorance. They're like, "You can't explain this or that, and you can't account for this, that, or the other thing; therefore, God is true."

 

Every single one of their arguments follows the same basic formula. Point out a deficiency in how atheists perceive the universe and then use this to assert that God is real.

 

In the movie The God Who Wasn't There, Brian Flemming and Richard Dawkins are talking about counter-memes on one of the audio commentary tracks. The idea is to create a meme for atheism that is as appealing as the Christian meme. I have no idea how to do this, but I think a key counter-meme would be one that exposes and discourages the argument from ignorance.

 

After that, it would just be a matter of dominoes falling.

[Antlerman]

When he jumped to "since we don't know anything, trust god," I almost fell out of my chair though.  He even pointed out that "well, here you have to kinda sorta trust your senses I just told you you couldn't trust."  What the hell is that?  Oh, and I can't say "hell" or use ad homs, and I must keep a really, really, really open mind 'mkay.  Who the hell does he think he is?

I hadn't seen the original thread that quote was taken from. I was guessing that's where he was going with his train of "logic". So he was doing that?

 

To me he sounded like he was trying to give his argument credibility by trying to sound logical and heady. He sounds sophomoric in superficially understanding the philosophical concepts he's touching on, but he is over generalizing and misapplying them. His conclusion that we should therefore trust in the absolute of God is a faulty argument.

 

It's a nice sounding argument if in fact that the Judeo-Christian "God who is There" (ala Dr. Francis Shaffer - whom I suspect he has read), was genuinely accessible through reliable means. There's where it fails. Yes, the concept of the personal God "appears to provide" absolutes in the areas of Morals, Metaphysics, and Epistemology if it were true, but what the fuck good is to us if it's only accessible through human interpretation? How is that any more reliable than science interpreting observation? My response is that science is vastly more reliable because the hypothesis can be tested. Biblical hermeneutics are not testable, only testable through emotional means. Incorporate this into his theory: Good 'Ole Southern Preacher boys. Yeah, now that's the fruits from his logic system?? Phooey

 

I would suggest to the sophomore to continue his contemplation of these concepts until he comes to their logical conclusion: The only absolute is there is none. He's only trying to escape his perceived terror of uncertainty.

[Ouroboros]

(snip)

In the movie The God Who Wasn't  There, Brian Flemming and Richard Dawkins are talking about counter-memes on one of the audio commentary tracks.  The idea is to create a meme for atheism that is as appealing as the Christian meme.  I have no idea how to do this, but I think a key counter-meme would be one that exposes and discourages the argument from ignorance.

 

After that, it would just be a matter of dominoes falling.

Yes, agree. I've been thinking in the same path (even though I haven't seen the movie yet), the only way to break the meme virus or to create a meme anti-virus, that can spread and be just as attractive.

[Asimov]

Ok, so this is what I have put together to get ready to reply to him:

 

The PX are his points that he has made, what I have written in brackets are comments to help me along.

What do you know about the Big Bang?

 

P1. In order to know anything about the Big Bang you have to be seated in a position to see and to know.

P2. The ability to see and know have come by some power or order beyond myself. ex -I didn't give birth to myself.

P3. The Big Bang may or may not have happened.

P4. The Big Bang cannot be the predicate of information because it is an event.

P5. A predicate shows the relationship between facts. (it is the basis for facts in a statement.)

P6. You have not accounted for how one distinguishes one fact from another. (red herring).

P7. Insist upon determing from within oneself the relationship between facts is a fallacy.

P8. Unless you know everything you cannot know anything truly.

 

(P1) Problems:

 

This is a false assumption that borders on solipsism. We can deduce what happened about the Big Bang from what we observe today and extrapolating. It's called indirect evidence. The theories that are presented fit the facts based on what we have observed through science.

 

(P2) Problems:

 

Non sequiter.

 

(P3) Problems:

 

Don't know what you're smoking, but there is a compendium of evidence to show the big bang happened, whether you like it or not.

 

(P4) Problems:

 

Unfortunately for you, this is the starting point of all information we see and observe in the universe. Time began at the Big Bang, Space began at the Big Bang. Anything "before" then is meaningless, if it exists at all.

 

(P5) Problems:

 

So?

 

(P6) Problems:

 

Red Herring, it is irrelevant that we don't know how one distinguishes on fact from another in order to distinguish one fact from another.

 

(P7) Problems:

 

You haven't demonstrated how that is a problem. If we can't trust our own experiences (which is all we know) then how can you say that anything is true, even God? This is, once again, solipsism.

 

(P8) Problems:

 

This ignores that humans don't deal in absolutes, because we are not absolute beings. Of course we can't know anything with absolute certainty, NOBODY is claiming that we do, or can. Your statement is therefore a red herring.

 

We can certainly make reasonable deductions based on what we observe and compile them together into a basis for theories (explanations) and laws (observances).

[Amethyst]

What do you know about the Big Bang? In order to know anything about it you have to be seated in a position to see and to know. That position and those faculties with which you know have come by some power or order beyond yourself (you didn't give birth to yourself, you didn't endow yourself with rational faculties, etc). The Big Bang may or may not have happened. It cannot be an ultimate point of predication because it is not a predicate. It is merely an event. A predicate shows the relationship between facts. One class of facts (I am sure we agree) is historical events. You have not accounted for how we perceive the relationship between facts however. Furthermore, you haven't accounted for HOW we can distinguish one fact from another. You insist upon determining from within yourself the relationship between facts. The problem there is that unless you know exhaustively you cannot know certainly. Unless you know EVERYTHING you cannot know ANYTHIN! G truly. Because you CAN distinguish one fact from another does not show me you can explain HOW you can distinguish one fact for another.

 

Typical wooly thinking. Their whole argument seems to be "You can't prove anything unless you know everything." That in itself is a logical fallacy, since being human, we can never know everything. Also sounds like something my fundy cube mate might think up.