I second that opinion.

Devans99 has twisted and turned words against all reason, logic, and pure intution. Where he was shown to fail, he said, "well, maybe the human mind is not capable to comprehend this." Well, maybe, but we talk about things we can support, not about things that are far-flung even as fantasies, conjectures or speculations.

Devans99, your theories don't add up, don't measure up, and you are wasting our time and yours on this website. You are not knowledgeable, you deflect criticism by not understanding it, and you speak generally no more than nonsense.

I can't make you disappear, Devans99, but I will encourage those whom I esteem not to engage you, because you don't play the game fairly. By that I mean that you don't adhere to logic, to evidence, even to speculative possibilities. You deny infinity, you insist on start time of the universe... then what happened five minutes before time started? Your theories can be shot down by a five-year-old, and it's only your incredibly huge ego that carries you through these discourses.

Well reasoned counter arguments would be nice instead of waffle.

Terrapin Station, you can prove me wrong just naming one effect that has no cause, and just naming one cause that has no effect.

I did not ask you to disprove me, or to prove that determinism is wrong. But until you establish that it is wrong, I have no reason to believe you.

If you insist that things happen without a cause, show me one. I can show you millions causes that have effect and trillions of effects that have causes. You can't show even one.

So what's so hard about this? You want to exclude the possibility of determinism on an a priori basis? Be my guest. Show me your logical proof that determinism can't exist due to purely logical reasons.

Otherwise please let me be. If you want to believe the impossible, that's your business, and I shan't interfere. But please don't call me out on believing the intuitively reasonable and the empirically not yet disproven.

↪god must be atheist Well reasoned counter arguments would be nice instead of waffle. — Devans99

Those days are over. A number of us have given you well-reasoned counter arguments. They did not do the trick. Now is the time to waffle, and show our teeth, for you do not belong here.

I wouldn't even waste your time with him anymore. I contacted the moderators and they are aware of this guys behaviour and will be watching him. They already removed his insulting question to me earlier. They also observe that both accounts are from different locations so they say unless some advanced tech trickery is going on then it probably isnt the same person. Although the dialogue between both accounts is still suspicious and he's pretty manipulative so maybe he's pinging to a different server between accounts but can't really be proven by us. I mean, the guy is literally imagining things not moving through time unless his magic cursor is on it so he seems to be under the impression he is an observing god making everything work with his presence and then giving himself special privileges over other humans when he infers that humans cant understand his logic yet. It's a rigged debate. Hes not here to learn, he's here for narcisstic supply not realising that its generally accepted in philosophy that there is no such thing as a perfect or infallible argument and it is all open to critique.

But movement just becomes an illusion — Devans99

The "illusion" of movement contains movement in the illusion, doesn't it?

In other words, phenomenally, something like a fly, say, moves across my field of vision. We can call that an "illusion." The illusion features movement, doesn't it?

Terrapin Station, you can prove me wrong just naming one effect that has no cause, and just naming one cause that has no effect. — god must be atheist

As I said, as a logical principle, it can't be supported by empirical data.

In the proof, we're not saying, "We never observe phenomena with no cause," we're saying that there can be no phemomena without a cause.

"There can be phenomena without a cause" isn't at all inconsistent with "We never observe phenomena with no cause." If there can be one thing in some far-flung corner of the universe that occurs, just one time, with no cause, then "There can be phenomena without a cause" is true even though "We never observe phenomena with no cause" is also true.

But "There can be phenomena without a cause" can't be true if "There can be no phenomena without a cause" is true.

It's important to understand the distinction there, and to understand why empirical data can't support the logical principle.

"There can be phenomena without a cause" isn't at all inconsistent with "We never observe phenomena with no cause."If there can be one thing in some far-flung corner of the universe that occurs, just one time, with no cause, then "There can be phenomena without a cause" is true even though "We never observe phenomena with no cause" is also true. — Terrapin Station

So please show me this exception. I have nothing but asked of you for this, and now you lecture me on how one such instance invalidates determinism.

Be my guest. Invalidate determinism. I am all ears. Show me that example.

You are only adding words to this conversation. What you wrote had already been agreed on by many people, including you and me. You don't need to lecture me on that. But if you talk the talk, then walk the walk. Please, for the Nth time, show me that example. Please don't elaborate more on this, because from what I see I know as much as you do, and you know as much as I do. Just show me the instance of no causation. Please. No more lectures. No more philosophizing. Just an example.

Im a little perplexed here as well, are you/would you objecting to something along the lines of
“Everything we know so far supports cause and effect, so unless there is a specific example showing otherwise I will accept cause and effect as an axiom.”?
Your stance seems to be that cause and effect is dubious, that we do not have very good reasons to look at things that way and should be accounting for cause and effect not being the case (sometimes) in as well. Isnt that a bit like always having to account for an invisible unicorn, cuz hey, its possible?
Or is this one of those teaching moments where you are trying to invoke self realisation rather than just state your point (sorry, couldnt think of a way of saying that without sounding a bit snarky, hopefully you see thats not how its intended)?

Also, concerning Devon99, these kinds of retards will not go away if people continue to interact with them. I understand the impulse to rail against the offensively dense but its not worth the price. This determinism discussion can be had in its own thread, not feeding trolls goes for whatever this Devon guy is up to as well.

Is Devans99 what you call a troll? Or is he just an ignorant nincompoop? Not a rhetorical question. He displays characteristics of both.

Not sure if troll is the right term for him, but the method for dealing with him is the same. Do not feed.
I also wouldnt say he is ignorant, just dogmatic and as someone else said perhaps narcissistic.
Most importantly, I do not think he argues in good faith, not interested in an exchange. Its all Ad Hoc, again as someone else mentioned.

In other words, phenomenally, something like a fly, say, moves across my field of vision. We can call that an "illusion." The illusion features movement, doesn't it? — Terrapin Station

If we switch to one spacial dimension only then on a 2D graph, this could be represented by a point (the stationary observer) and a line (the fly moving across space).

But the 2D graph is completely static.

So please show me this exception. I have nothing but asked of you for this, and now you lecture me on how one such instance invalidates determinism.

Be my guest. Invalidate determinism. I am all ears. Show me that example. — god must be atheist

You're not understanding me. What I was objecting to was something stated as a logical principle.

I'm avoiding a discussion of whether we experience causality and what does or doesn't count as an example because that's a different topic.

If we switch to one spacial dimension only then on a 2D graph, this could be represented by a point (the stationary observer) and a line (the fly moving across space).

But the 2D graph is completely static. — Devans99

And what would that have to do with the fact that there is something that is moving or changing?

So please show me this exception. I have nothing but asked of you for this, and now you lecture me on how one such instance invalidates determinism.

Be my guest. Invalidate determinism. I am all ears. Show me that example.
— god must be atheist

You're not understanding me. What I was objecting to was something stated as a logical principle.

I'm avoiding a discussion of whether we experience causality and what does or doesn't count as an example because that's a different topic. — Terrapin Station

I get you. So you avoid discussing something we are discussing. You just want to talk about it as a logical principle.

Whether I understand you or not, is immaterial. You raised an objection which you can't defend. So you decided to talk about it as it were a principle... a Kantian principle? A Form?

I even forgot what we were talking about. You said I can't come from a point of view of determinism. I say you are trying to oppress me, and tell me what I can do and what I cannot do.

I can come from a point of view of determinism because there is no alternative to it. You say there is; I asked you to show it to me; you failed at showing it to me in principle and in action how non-determinism is possible.

Now you want to talk about principles? How do you talk about whether we experience causality without talking about it? If it's a different topic, which you want to avoid, then why did you raise it?

And you declare that I don't understand you.

Well, in a way you're right. I don't understand anyone who wants to talk about the principle of something without talking about that something.

You raised an objection which you can't defend. — god must be atheist

The defense of the objection is that there is no support of strong determinism as a logical principle. The relevance of talking about it as a logical principle is that that's what Devans99 is appealing to in his proof.

The defense of the objection is that there is no support of strong determinism as a logical principle. The relevance of talking about it as a logical principle is that that's what Devans99 is appealing to in his proof. — Terrapin Station

Sure there is support of determinism (there is no divisions between determinism such as "strong" "weak" etc; there is determinism, period). Everything that happens has a cause; every cause has an effect. this is true in an a priori world, and our world emulates that principle. Is it possible to get outside of this chain? I say not. Nothing can happen outside of it. You say this does not hold.

If you want to destroy the principle of determinism, you either name a logical process in which causal chain is impossible, or else show an example of it. Until then you must accept it. By "logical process" I meant a process which is necessarily true in all possible worlds.

You can do neither. So why are you still insisting that determinism is principle not logically sound? Or not logically proven? I don't even know what you mean when you say "support of a logical principle". What do you accept as support and what do you reject as support?

Do you accept reality as support or reality is not enough evidence for support?

Do you accept or not accept as a support the system of a logical series of events in which every action has a cause, and every action has been caused?

WHAT OTHER ALTERNATIVES CAN YOU OFFER?

I daresay none.

So why is this, I ask, for crying out loud, why is this strong mental resistence in you against determinism? You are the follower of some sort of religion? Or a of a cult, or of a kabal, which has among its dogma that there is no determinism?

You raised an objection which you can't defend.
— god must be atheist

The defense of the objection is that there is no support of strong determinism as a logical principle. The relevance of talking about it as a logical principle is that that's what Devans99 is appealing to in his proof.
16 minutes ago — Terrapin Station

Not everything that DEvans99 says is crap. You can't use things that he says right against him.

Concentrate on things he is wrong about.

But in my humble opinion the best choice of action for you would be to take Mark Dennis's frustrated example, DingoJones' REASONED example and my common sense example, and stopped talking to Devans99 altogether.

Since you're in that mode of wanting to argue about every little thing, I'm just going to address one thing at a time. I'm not going to perpetually argue five, then ten, then fifteen etc. different things per post.

Sure there is support of determinism (there is no divisions between determinism such as "strong" "weak" etc; — god must be atheist

"Strong determinism" is basically the Laplace's demon version. The notion that the precise location, momentum, etc. of every particle in the universe causally dictates the future location, momentum, etc. of every particle (and there are only particles).

"Weak determinism" is any of a variety of views that are less stringent--typically they allow for at least some (non-0 or 1) probabilistic phenomena.

Thank you for the explanation. Probabilistic phenomena only apply to those thinkers (all humans, basically) who can't fathom or encompass all knowables in an instantaneous state of a deterministic universe and then who can't compute future states from that. The universe is still in a completely deterministic state; probabilities only enter for those who need it, and only those need it who are less well endowed than to include the system in its entirety and make precise predictions from it. Althoug the precise predictions in principle are possible.

So weak determinism is not a philosophical principle, but a phenomenological event applied to some observers of a deterministic system.

In principle, there is only one determinism. No systems exist beside determinism. Those who talk about weak determinism mix up the system as is with the system as it is observed. Those who talk about weak determinism don't even have the insight to realize they are doing a switcharoo... they deceive themselves without even knowing it, by ignorance and by lack of enough insight, and the deception itself is that they take their perceptive capabilities and imbue it on reality.

From my meagre understanding of 'big bang' cosmology, there's a few things that can be said.

First of all, the theory was first published by a Belgian Jesuit priest, who was also a scientist, by the name of Georges Lemaître. He published his 'theory of the primeval atom' in an obscure journal in the 1930's and it was initially ignored. But as the idea became more widely circulated, it was resisted by many scientists, because it sounded uncomfortably close to 'creation ex nihilo'. So much so, that by the 1950's, the Pope began to refer to it as a validation of Catholic doctrine! However, this caused Lemaître acute embarrassment, as he believed it was completely wrong to appeal to science in support of religious doctrines, and he persuaded the Pope's science advisor to ask His Holiness to refrain from mentioning it in this context in future - which he did.

However, the very notion that the whole universe exploded into existence in a single instant from an infinitesimal point can't but sound mystical. The hard question is, why did the event culminate in exactly the kind of way that lead to the development of stars, matter, and eventually living beings, when, with very minute differences in a very small number of key parameters, none of that would have happened. That is the 'fine-tuning' issue, and it's a difficult question.

Have you considered a cyclical phasic universe? — Mark Dennis

There is a school of thought that basically asks, 'if it can happen once....' that maybe THE Big Bang was really A Big Bang, and that the universe might indeed expand and contract through regular cycles over cosmic time periods. And that sounds very much like the idea of the 'eternal return' that was characteristic of ancient Hindu cosmology.

As to whether any of these ideas can be utilised to argue for the existence of God - well, I think Lemaître's attitude is always worth bearing in mind. However, I also think that the so-called 'fine-tuning argument' is not going to go away, and that appealing to the notion of the 'infinite multiverses' is a pretty phony way of avoiding it. Perhaps it's technically un-answerable, but regardless the fact of the many uncanny parameters that must be exactly so in order for anything to exist at all is hard to explain away as mere coincidence, and seems to suggest a 'first cause'.

But it's also worth remembering that Kant's fourth antinomy of reason is

Thesis: There belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, a being that is absolutely necessary.
Anti-thesis: An absolutely necessary being nowhere exists in the world, nor does it exist outside the world as its cause.

If it's beyond the reach of science, then it's also beyond the reach of reason.

I don't use the qualifiers as an endorsement. The idea is simply that since there are different views, it's a courtesy to give some indication of which idea I'm referring to, when it wouldn't be clear from context, as an aid to anyone who might be reading a post.

Anyway, your view strikes me as having faith in (strong) determinism, but I'm not sure why you'd have such faith in it. If someone were to point out phenomena that are commonly believed to be ontologically (not epistemologically) probabilistic, you'd insist that it's only an epistemic issue, but I'm not sure why you'd insist that.

If there were in reality weak determinism, then there would be weak Darwinism, weak Relativity Theories, weak Quantum Mechanics, weak arguments and weak minds. Oops, I got carried away. Going back to the stream of things; weak determinism would yield weak truths, weak logic, weak time measurements, weak classical physics, weak laws of thermodynamics, weak gravity.

But none of those can be observed. (Save for the weak arguments and the weak minds.)

So even in empirical trials determinism is only of one kind. Itself.

I don't use the qualifiers as an endorsement. — Terrapin Station

So you accept there are differences, without observing and figuring out why there are differnces... leads to the weak logic I talked about, meaning, miixing up knowledge with reality. The knowledge of a limited mind to predict the future while the future is fully predictable.

Very smart to not use qualifiers. You can't be convinced of the sterngth of an argument against your point, much like an ostrich which has its head in the stand can't use his eyesight to see a predator approaching.

Not that I am a predator. But logic is coming to get you and if you don't face it, and hide behind intentional ignorance, then watch out.

If there were in reality weak determinism, then there would be weak Darwinism, weak Relativity Theories, weak Quantum Mechanics, weak arguments and weak minds. Oops, I got carried away. Going back to the stream of things; weak determinism would yield weak truths, weak logic, weak time measurements, weak classical physics, weak laws of thermodynamics, weak gravity. — god must be atheist

Your argument is that if there's some F (some type of thing) with property φ, then all G, H, I etc.(all types of things) must have property φ?

The idea is simply that there are different views, — Terrapin Station

And you seem to be quite happy and comfortable accepting that there are WRONG different views. I am not.

This is what philosophy is about. To beleive the true views and to reject the wrong views.

You are of a special kind of philosopher, who rejects the basic premise of philosophy: to find the truht and to love the wisdom hiding behind false views.

And you seem to be quite happy and comfortable accepting that there are WRONG different views. I am not. — god must be atheist

You don't believe that there are other views, or wrong views?

Your argument is that if there's some F (some type of thing) with property φ, then all G, H, I etc.(all types of things) must have property φ? — Terrapin Station

I am sorry you lost me there. You are talking nonsense, do you realize that? If you make symbols, and want to communicate with those, you must denote their meaning, and the reltionship between them.

What you wrote is sheer gibberish to me. Sorry.

Anyway, your view strikes me as having faith in (strong) determinism, but I'm not sure why you'd have such faith in it — Terrapin Station

Because it's the truth? Have you ever entertained that possiblity?