ARCHIVE: Burden of Proof

[Nathon Detroit]

OK, about the same as there being an allpowerful being that has existed for eternity.
How's that.
(are you sure we haven't done this before?)

Yup... and as predicted you still haven't answered.

 

[Caledvwlch]

It does if you are going to dogmatically claim that the existing plausible theory is in error.

Otherwise... you are just plain irrational.

Again, I didn't claim that it was in error. We all know that I don't believe in the Christian God and creation story. What I claimed is that we can't know. If we knew, it wouldn't be a theory. I'm having trouble remembering how this evolved from the OP.

I love this stuff.

I don't need to have an alternate plausible theory just because I don't believe yours. Yes, matter and energy exist. Do I believe they create themselves? No. Do I believe they were created at all? Not necessarily. So little is known about the nature of the universe that for me to take some sort of theory and fight about it would be dishonest for one thing, and denying my own curiosity of the possibilities.

 

[Vaquero45]

Options for the existence of the universe:

It was always here.
It created itself.
A supernatural cause.

The universe could not have always existed because stars are still burning. The universe could not have created itself, because it wasn't there to do so. (self refuting). We are left needing an uncaused, supernatural, infinite cause. If you want to call that the FSM, you still are appealing to a supernatural being, and lose your atheist label.

Unless, as I asked above, there is a fourth option?

 

[Caledvwlch]

Options for the existence of the universe:

It was always here.
It created itself.
A supernatural cause.

The universe could not have always existed because stars are still burning. The universe could not have created itself, because it wasn't there to do so. (self refuting). We are left needing an uncaused, supernatural, infinite cause. If you want to call that the FSM, you still are appealing to a supernatural being, and lose your atheist label.

Unless, as I asked above, there is a fourth option?

How about an ultra-natural cause? I natural creator existing on a seperate plane of reality. Like the universe might be on some "kid's" desk for a science project. Perhaps the universe only exists as it is percieved by me. Perhaps the universe is created by the collective consciousness of man. There are so many fourth options it boggles the mind.

 

[kmoney]

It just seems like it is almost impossible to "prove" anything outside of mathematics. Even if we took you to Spenser's house (which is actually a makeshift compund in the Mojave Desert) and showed you his blue shirt, he could have changed it right before we got there, you could be colorblind, he could be a Spenser impersonator, etc...

I understand, I thought we already agreed upon "compelling evidence". :noid:

Or mine is!

On second though, you're probably right, you're wrong.

Maybe people mean different things, but I've always considered a negative claim as being the claim that a specific proposition is not true.

Of course, logically, all claims can be expressed in both ways if you permit yourself to use unusual linguistic constructs. Just add an "~" into your proposition and translate back to English.

So, saying "Knight does not have an antigravity machine" isn't negative?
Wouldn't "Knight has an antigrav machine" be the proposition? And I'm claiming it to be not true? Or do you think negative claims have more to do with a claim like, "Antigravity machines cannot exit", and that would be a negative claim.

 

[ThePhy]

I would rather stick with known science and know that the unbreakable laws of science are just that... unbreakable.

I thought that one of the maxims of science was that all ideas and conclusions are open to challenge. Was I wrong, some are now absolutes?

 

[azrael777]

Ok i dont claim to know more than the average person about science but my whole job is based on mathmatics. Is math a science or is science a math? Or am i just way off base.

 

[cattyfan]

SUTG is wondering why Knight is referring to himself in the third person.

cattyfan thinks he has Bob Dole syndrome...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I thought that one of the maxims of science was that all ideas and conclusions are open to challenge. Was I wrong, some are now absolutes?

Who said you cannot challenge the natural laws?

Knock yourself out!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This thread is a "keeper" (Turbo, Poly) I added "ARCHIVE" to the title.

 

[ThePhy]

Who said you cannot challenge the natural laws?

Knock yourself out!

I presume you are basing part of your case on the Second Law of Thermo. Is that an inviolable law?

 

[Vaquero45]

How about an ultra-natural cause? I natural creator existing on a seperate plane of reality. Like the universe might be on some "kid's" desk for a science project. Perhaps the universe only exists as it is percieved by me. Perhaps the universe is created by the collective consciousness of man. There are so many fourth options it boggles the mind.

We can ask where god came from, or say like in the men in black movie, maybe we are in a charm on a cat's collar, but those questions only repeat the third option by pushing it back a generation or so. They ultimately end up requiring an uncaused supernatural cause.

 

[Frank Ernest]

I presume you are basing part of your case on the Second Law of Thermo. Is that an inviolable law?

Reasonably seems so. Do you have information to the contrary?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

 

[ThePhy]

When a question was posed to Knight asking if the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was inviolable, Frank Ernest responded:

Reasonably seems so. Do you have information to the contrary?

Let me make sure I understand you. You are willing to go on record as saying that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is correct, period. No other law can or will supersede it. Right?

Knight, you waxed eloquently for a bunch of posts in this thread on the idea that the universe couldn’t “create itself”. Are you on the “2nd Law is absolutely correct” side, or the ”All conclusions of science are open to challenge” side?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, you waxed eloquently for a bunch of posts in this thread on the idea that the universe couldn’t “create itself”. Are you on the “2nd Law is absolutely correct” side, or the ”All conclusions of science are open to challenge” side?

Do you believe in perpetual motion machines?

 

[ThePhy]

Do you believe in perpetual motion machines?

No. Now can you answer my question?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No. Now can you answer my question?

Great! Apparently we are on the "same side" on this issue.

 

[ThePhy]

Great! Apparently we are on the "same side" on this issue.

On the possibility of perpetual motion machines, we probably are. That does not translate into agreement on the applicability of the 2nd Law to the creation of the universe.

I see you didn't answer my question yet again. I am not particularly interested in playing the game of dancing around issues rather than having an honest and open direct conversation. If you want to discuss your implied application of the 2nd Law openly, fine. If not, then I have other things I need to attend to.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

On the possibility of perpetual motion machines, we probably are. That does not translate into agreement on the applicability of the 2nd Law to the creation of the universe.

I see you didn't answer my question yet again. I am not particularly interested in playing the game of dancing around issues rather than having an honest and open direct conversation. If you want to discuss your implied application of the 2nd Law openly, fine. If not, then I have other things I need to attend to.

You must be confused.

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics has not been invoked by me or anyone I can see on this thread in relation to the creation of the universe (that would relate more to the 1st law). The 2nd law becomes interesting and relevant for those (such as Spenser) who insinuate that the universe has existed forever.

 

[ThePhy]

You must be confused.

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics has not been invoked by me or anyone I can see on this thread in relation to the creation of the universe (that would relate more to the 1st law). The 2nd law becomes interesting and relevant for those (such as Spenser) who insinuate that the universe has existed forever.

When I first entered this thread I specifically identified the 2nd law as what I thought you were relying on. You could have saved us all some ink had you said in your first response to me what you are saying now.

Be that as it may, I am willing to look at the 1st law. Is the 1st law what you were referencing as “unbreakable”?