• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Paradox Of Nothingness And The Case For The New Deism

Oh noooooo...not again. We did all this at UKS not long ago. I warn you people, he turns nasty if cornered
 
Edmund Standing said:
Is there actually a point to the article?
Click to expand...


1. It would really make me feel good about myself if lots of people listened to my ideas.
2. Thus, I will flood the internet with my ideas
3. And then sit back and feel good about myself.
4. In this way, I avoid ever having to confront the issue of whether there is any actual value to my ideas.
5. And, thus, never have to risk feeling bad about myself.
6. Because other people exist for no other reason than for my own self-gratification.
7. They hardly even count at all.
8. Hooray me!
 
I got down to " David Hume criticized this argument,..." in the first post and decided to have a look at some responses before continuing. I'm glad I did!

I applaud anyone who had the stamina to read those two posts.

(Mumbles) There ought to be a law...


M.
 
Let me get this straight. This guy needs other people to read his stuff in order to give himself a feeling of self worth, yet he cares so little about other people in the first place that he won't even bother to stick around and discuss the merit of his ideas. However his own feeling of worth derives from the very people he deems worthless. Yeah.

Now there's a paradox for you. Scratch that. It's just more hypocrisy.

BTW PixyMisa and Beerina definitely deserve credit for jumping on the grenade, even though from the looks of things, Ed Herbert pulled out and threw the pin instead.
 
I forgot to mention -- nice work Beerina! Don't know about a Nobel, but a commendation, certainly.


M.
 
Sooo God of the Gaps in many, many, many words? What's the point?
 
Hey. Give the guy a break.
He's trying.
(pause...)

Meanwhile,back at the pass...
 
Two comments on your critique Beerina (which I'm afraid just boils down to an assumption materialism is true) and they are related. First I don't reject quantum fluctuation as a mechanism for the emergence of the universe only that the "laws" that allow it may be contingent on an observer.

Second when I say that something can come from nothing I mean nothing defined as "no difference". The contradiction arises when nothing is defined as "without property". Nothingness is obviously not without property but what property does it have? Simply this; it is a concept. Nothing more. It is, as I said in the essay, the only thing that can be thought of in completely negative terms except for the fact it can be thought of. This point is clarified later on but I will tell you this it is very close to Stenger.
 
Last edited:
Ed Herbert said:
I don't reject quantum fluctuation as a mechanism for the emergence of the universe only that the "laws" that allow it may be contingent on an observer.
Click to expand...
Well, I wasn't a simple hit-and-run, but I think I'll wait until his post count reaches double digits before I get too involved in any discussion.

So far, it seems to boil down to "If a tree falls in the forest, god is there to hear it make a sound," which could be consistent with a view of the universe which requires a deistic "god the universal observer" for its continued existence. I don't really have an argument with that definition of god. While it seems no more provable than any other definition, it's not the logical impossibility the "all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful" version is.
 
Loss Leader said:
1. It would really make me feel good about myself if lots of people listened to my ideas.
2. Thus, I will flood the internet with my ideas
3. And then sit back and feel good about myself.
4. In this way, I avoid ever having to confront the issue of whether there is any actual value to my ideas.
5. And, thus, never have to risk feeling bad about myself.
6. Because other people exist for no other reason than for my own self-gratification.
7. They hardly even count at all.
8. Hooray me!
Click to expand...

Actually, I suspect he has the last part of item six down to a fine science (mind the lotion!!).:D:jaw-dropp:D
 
Impressive collection of vowels and consonants.

I did not read it.

My PhD supervisor always said:
If you cannot explain your position in a 15 minutes presentation or a 1000 words report you haven't understood the whole thing. Twenty years after... I agree.

Beerina
Impressive. Or maybe you just counted on the fact that nobody will check? :dig:
 
Ed Herbert said:
<snippity>

The extreme form of this doubt in the senses leads to a belief that you are alone and everything that you see is nothing but an illusion called solipsism. Unfortunately I cannot disprove it, as it applies to the world of the senses but, on the other hand, I have no reason to believe it either.

<snippity>
Click to expand...


This is pretty much the entire argument in a nutshell. Anything you do not like can be hand-waved away. Just be aware the same argument can be applied to Deism. "I cannot disprove Deism, but, on the other hand, I have no reason to believe it either."

As far as I can tell, the rest of the discussion is an example of the dangers of trying to apply QM principles to macroscopic systems.
 
Last edited:
Just out of interest, have you any acquaintance with the thoughts of Hans Küng, Mr. Herbert?


M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom