Eclectic Media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIDZyzwqmwE
4:54 "a sum of all systems cannot be a system itself" ?
You better HAD break that down very carefully ...
Suppose I have three baskets of apples. The sum of apples will certainly not be a basket, it will be too big for that, but it will on the other hand very clearly be as much of an apples system as each basket was.
5:23 "in order for the universe to be an isolated system, it would have to have some system external to it to be isolated from"
Er no ... isolated from external system is relevant to definition of "isolated system" not by existence, but by irrelevance of that external system. Which means a system having no system external to it at all would be precisely as much an isolated system as one isolated from an existing external one. Or more so, since more isolated.
5:41 "so the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to the universe as a whole"
Now, is Dhorpatan your name? - you seem to be very extremely blundering in philosophy here.
6:01 "I just refuted that" ...
I may not agree with him on "energy can neither be created nor destroyed", BUT I very definitely heard no refutation of it from your side right now.
6:14 "you are begging the question of the eternality of the universe"
Oh, you are not into mainstream science acceptance of universe had a beginning in Big Bang?
If Atheists like you gain ground among scientists, I hope Catholics will see how they are wasting their time, those of us who do that, when some try to suck up to science by replacing creation 7200 years ago by Big Bang 13 + billion years ago.
6:30 "there is nothing to show universe cannot be eternal"
OK, where exactly does all the hydrogen come from?
You see, your usual theories are saying any non-hydrogen element came from hydrogen via fusion in plasma in stars. Which means hydrogen is being used up all the time. If universe had already existed for all of eternity, why isn't hydrogen used up all of it an eternity ago?
6:44 "when that is simply not a scientific fact"
Oh key, you take away your support for BB, I'm delighted to take away mine (which I did already)!
If Atheists won't play by that rule, why should we Christians do so?
7:23 "they never say all things have a cause"
Obviously Theologians don't, since God hasn't. Same as with Theistic Philosophers. Some overlap between categories, like St Thomas Aquinas, like C. S. Lewis.
BUT nephelimfree was referring to the p[oint] o[f] v[iew] of "science".
Do SCIENTISTS say "all things have a cause"?
Does NOT mean God has to have one, since they are not dealing with God. Would only mean all things THEY deal with have a cause.
Is perhaps universe one of them?
7:38 "science doesn't deal with metaphysical principles"
So there is no scientific objection against miracles, next time we bring up the story of Resurrection, then?
7:59 [not quoting] But the point of nephelimfree was not presuppositional apologetics like logic (as in our access to its universal unbreakable laws) or goodness (as in our access to its universal and moralmly binding laws) needing to have a cause.
He was making a simplified cosmological argument as in all THINGS (objects/collections of objects) needing to have a cause.
So, hardly a very clever rebuttal, was it?
8:24 Indeed, God is "supposed to be" uncaused, BUT it's scientists who don't deal with God and who say all things (i e all things they deal with) have a cause.
Now, would the universe be an object?
Or do sciences not study collections of objects?
Either way, you earlier stated universe was much more than a sum of its parts, therefore it would also be an óbject - I would objéct to that of course - meaning this scientific law applies to it even more than if it is a collection (however harmonious such) of objects.
THIS is the part where nephelimfree takes in science as a witness for theistic philosophy.
8:35 infinite regress ... ah yes.
This is indeed a problem in any philosophy, including science, insofar as it claims to be a complete philosophy (if not, it is not claiming infinity for its regress).
This is why movement, causality, being must have uncaused causes for their observed occurrences. 1:st, 2:nd, 3:rd way of St Thomas.
Thanks for not supporting Kant's (or someone else's, anyway I think Russell's) idiotic claim we couldn't know if infinite regress is impossible or not.
9:22 "explanation is simply that the universe and energy is eternal"
- 1) how can energy be eternal if one of its so called states is "potential energy" in which it is obviously not an existing either thing or attribute.
This point may need some illustration.
- I hang a sack on a hook. Above the ground. It took kinetic energy to lift it. Possibly this kinetic energy is equal in quantity to the potential energy it has while hanging on the hook.
- But I dig a hole under the sack. This adds to the height of its fall, therefore to its potential energy (as it is defined), and this without either touching the sack or the hook.
- Furthermore, the dirt I shovel away has another density than the sack and therefore the kinetic energy of digging the hole is not equal to the added potential energy.
Where does the added potential energy come from or the deleted one go?
So, energy as usually defined is not in all its states existing and directly measureable and therefore it is not eternal either.
- I hang a sack on a hook. Above the ground. It took kinetic energy to lift it. Possibly this kinetic energy is equal in quantity to the potential energy it has while hanging on the hook.
- 2) if universe is eternal and has eternally fusioned hydrogen into higher elements, where does all the remaining hydrogen come from?
(Thanking Dom Jaki via Rev Houghton for this one).
9:43 first part may be grandstanding ... I am not sure I would call a man like Alexander Graham Bell a Christian since he was into eugenics movement. However, he was not as bad as Sanger.
second part does NOT beg the question, it is your answer which does.
And repeating "theological blunder" when it was about the kind of sciences you usually refer to as such ...
10:10 a supernatural cause creating energy and matter and the universe is a serious problem ...?
I thought you just said that science doesn't deal with metaphysics?
10:24 How does an immaterial being create material reality? FAIR question, but it is dealt with.
Because spirit is not just immaterial, it's supermaterial. For one.
Second, created spirits cannot create matter from nothing only rearrange already existing matter (and move around otherwise, as in angels moving heavenly bodies or as in demons acting poltergeists - or as in human beings moving their bodies in intelligent ways, like speech or writing). So if God is a spirit, how does He create matter from nothing?
Well, He's not a created spirit, he is as far above (or more than that above) created spirits as these are above matter. Or rather, the distance between created spirit and matter is insignificant beside the difference between Creator and creature.
10:46 how get material from what is not material?
God is spirit and can think.
He can therefore think up matter. As a concept.
He is all powerful and can do what He wants and He is Existence Itself, so He can give existence to anything, to any concept He has thought up.
Interaction problem is a pseudoproblem. It's a conundrum more than a problem. It is most problematic in man, where human spirit is limited in its dominion over matter to some aspects of body and not others and not over anything outside body except through it. God and angels have no bodies. Bt to us the human case is also best observed.
Where the conundrum becomes a problem is for materialists. Saying brain due to its matter in a certain arrangement can think is like saying an abacus because of its arrangement of beads can count.
Saying a brain so arranged can think when it involves the movements of biochemical processes of life is like saying an abacus can count when its beads are being moved. Obviously an abacus can never understand mathematics - it's the one using it who does. And so a brain viewed as a purely material entity can never be thinking either.
HGL's F.B. writings : Our Lady of the Rosary to today, debate between a geocentric thomist and some heliocentrics
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/p/our-lady-of-rosary-to-today-debate.html
Ibid. : St Luke concludes five more days of debate with same person
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/p/st-luke-concludes-fiver-more-days-of.html
Ibid. : Why would they be that anyway? (Quantum Physics & mind debate)
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/01/qph.html
Ibid. : OrchOR - what is that?
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/01/orchor-what-is-that.html
[Relevant part I did not give link to on video comment:
deretour : Trigonometry, principles, astronomic applications
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/trigonometry-principles-astronomic.html]
11:01 What is the locus of "interaction" between God and matter?
Everywhere where matter exists - since everywhere it is existing by the will of God.
The quip is a somewhat lame concept transfer from the idea refuted by Steno that hypothalamus were the locus of interaction between soul and body.
According to St Thomas Aquinas everywhere in the body, the soul is its living and life transferring form.
Light can shine into an eye, it's the soul that makes this sight - all the way from eye into "sensus communis" in the brain where sight interacts with hearing, touch etc - which are all animated by the soul in the outside as is in the brain itself the sensus communis.
Which does not here mean "common sense" as in "good sense" or "folk wisdom" but which does mean an overall picture in which the sense impressions from all senses interact. Etc.
Any act of the soul can be impaired if the corresponding organ (in periphery or in brain) is hurt.
But an act of God cannot be impaired just because the matters or created spirits in question are damaged, since He is able to create anything anew. In the case of God vs created universe the question of "locus of interaction" is either malformed or the answer is correctly "everywhere".
And God knows everything by His own acts, not (as we) by something external influencing Him.
13:17 It's a blow below the belt to say Atheism is a mental disorder?
Well, in lots of officially atheist countries Christianity (above a certain level of non-attractive lukewarmness) has been classified so. Commies and Atheists have wielded this against Christianity well before nephelimfree blows back same way.
Actually, Dawkins is more or less continuously (for a longer time in "The God Delusion") making precisely that blow below the belt.
So, if you complain about nephelimfree (I would not trust shrinks to apply it correctly anyway) why not complain about Dawkins first? Wait ... maybe you will : there are nearly two minutes left of your video.
Unnecessarily hateful?
Well ... what about the things that are being listed in DSMV?
13:38 "Atheism has been around since ancient times, since probably ancient Greece."
Well, so have psychic mediums. Look at voodoo mediums, imagine the Pythia of Delphis behaving like that, hardly what I would call sane.
Or rather BOTH existed in Ancient Greece, NEITHER flourished in the much saner Middle Ages ... recurrent madness? Why not?
13:44 "to say that people like ? ? ? math?"
People like who? I didn't hear you. And full volume is on here.
14:01 Are you sure it might not turn out to be a fair warning? I mean, look at Saudi Arabia, they are flogging a blogger. Or Taliban were declaring 8 NGO workers insane and expelling them about a month before September 11 ... better take a look at what might happen if Muslims take over the West.
14:13 Thunderf00t is clearly not psychotic, but could be considered as neurotic - as in unnecessarily frustrated because self frustrating.
Are you sure you are not confusing terminology?
As to East State Communism, Christianity was treated in some cases (like under Khrushchev) as a psychosis - a madness you were locked up for.
That is NOT what nephelimfree is saying about you, he is gentler than THAT ... by the way, I have still not heard you complain about Dawkins on your side, you have one minute left.
14:27 Richard Carrier? Is that the guy who is remaking the blunder of Hume without even the excuse Hume had of ignorance of sources from the times when miracles were alleged?
The guy who supposes a Christian is supposed to think it ridiculous that St John ordered insects to parade beside his bed or takes it for granted that Legio Fulminatrix neither got help from the Christian God nor from a mage from Egypt, despite all ancient sources agreeing the victory over Marcomanni was miraculous rather than military?
Here is my refutation of him:
somewhere else : History vs Hume
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2013/01/history-vs-hume.html
Creation vs. Evolution : More on the Hume Rehash by Richard Carrier
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/01/more-on-hume-rehash-by-richard-carrier.html
somewhere else : Richard Carrier Claimed Critical Thinking was Rare Back Then ...
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2013/01/richard-carrier-clamed-critical.html
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Did St Irenæus know who St John was and What he Wrote?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/01/did-st-irenaeus-know-who-saint-john-was.html
14:40 Did you call Peter Singer well respected?
A criminal who during the Middle Ages would have burned on the stake, unless Inquisitors had given him the excuse of criminal insanity.
He is saying some men should be killed, and you call that beast "well respected"?
15:11 You are at least not calm and coherent enough to even quote your opponent correctly.
He was not saying atheism WILL one day etc but that it MIGHT one day be listed as a neurosis.
And in the last two seconds you were STILL not making a single complaint about Dawkins basically classifying Christianity as a psychosis, not just a neurosis!
Here endeth, for now, my refutation of Dhorpatan (?).
Bonus: a good post by NephilimFree himself:
What Darwin Didn't Know : Evolution Theory isn’t Scientific
http://nephilimfree.blogspot.com/2014/10/evolution-theory-is-not-scientific.html
No comments:
Post a Comment