That Mat wont Hunt: Debating Fire in the Equasions Argument

This was my last debate about a God argument on CARM before I decided to leave the echo chamber. Notice the double talk from this guy who claimed to be a scientist!

23 posts, I was just daring responses. they would nto respond then: before he answers like this:

Vestpa:

So speaketh ye olde verbose Master baiter...

that's his brilliant comment. he's trying to make pun saying that I master bait. that's this guy's idea of being serious about arguments. Then they wonder why I insult them. They just can't figure out what they do to set me off.

Brain W:

You've received answers meta, and Matt is FAR out of your league when it comes to physics..though you may have an edge when it comes to constructing fairytales (theology) based on your rudimentary understanding of physics. You are just being childish as usual by moving the goalposts after receiving your answers, molding a completely unfalsifiable position for your invisible friend to occupy, and always insisting on having the last word. Grow up.

the answers he's talking about were " on the original thread. three 3 I don't know. One "I have a scinece degree and you don't. four "laws of physics are descriptive" no elaboration or answer the actually questions I posed.

this post is what emerged form about a six post exchange that took place after their 23 posts of crap:

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
why couldn't you do this on the 1x1 board?

Why does it have to be a debate?

you kept insisting you 'beat' my argument and came out swinging when I was busy and told I was. So you set up the idea that you wanted a contest, then you run away when time comes to for it.

Obviously there's some reality there because no scientist is ever willing to blow explaining causes. they don't say "we don't need a theory of orig because theres' no origin to explain we are just imposing order because that's what we do."

People are naturally curious.

that's not an answer to my argument. It doesn't answer what I said. It's a reason to think about it, not a reason to dismiss it.

actually it contradicts scinece itself. Why bother to make systemic observations about he way things work if there's no order, we are just imposing it from within ourselves? Not only that but it contradicts the idea of a descriptive law of phscis, why bother to describe if it's just us imposing order instead of a real description?

I see you are using the term order without actually defining it.

I see you are playing your tricks of language again.I did define it. don't you know an operational definition when you see one?

You are incorrectly making the assumption that the reason why scientists measure, they make observations and perform experiments and from their results they see that the universe consistently behaviours according to some fixed rules, so far we have not observed anything different.

the same observation Whtiehead made, the same one Newton made, the basis of kicking God out of Science that LaPlace made. you are using the ideological prlaform of the cop out period after atheism abandoned LaPLace because it could no longer justify observations without assumptino of physical laws, brought on QM theory.

As the laws of physics are just man made descriptions, the constancy of the way that nature are inbuilt into the equations.

which also means it's a cultural construct, it's relative, it's not truth and it can be argued with.

I think I do. I say why don't things fall up? why aren't thing repelled by mass? why don't universe pop into my tea cup. I think we get an idea what I mean.

Actually you don't. I want a precise definition from you on the matter. It wastes times if we are using different notions of the word. Matt Slick accused me of this, but he really didn't understand the importance of it.

those are very simple questions why don't you answer them. The way I'm using "order is obvious I've explained it two oar three times. I've explained it in terms of the very things I"m asking you to explain.

when we argue about the resurrection Hans say "we don't see people getting up from being dead." that's a from of order. why don't see that? because apparently it never happens. you want to just leave it there it's just a coincidence that it never happens, but there has to be some kind of principle that prevents it. Otherwise we would see it. Since you admitted that's a human observation it can also be wrong. there can be other observations that you are just ignoring where in rare cases some people do get up from being dead.

when it comes to what you don't want to happen you assert it never does, when it comes to what you don't want then you assert a rule of some implication of a rule.



no it doesn't. I can assuming without necessarily having an idea of deity. you are rather balking at the conclusion not at the premise.

It does but you just can't see it.

you didn't read very carefully. I was talking about early modern scinece when LaPlace used perspective laws to take God out of scinece.

I did read it as a matter of fact. Laplace never invoked the notion of a deity because he didn't need to. He modelled the observations as he saw them.

Of cousre Laplace didn't evoke a deity, to the contrary, he kicked one out! that's what he's infamous for! you don't get it? He's is my all time candidate for fink of the ages becasue he took God out merely for a stupid reason like "I have psychical laws instead." Of course he took out the reason for having them.

I never said he appealed to deity, try reading the words next time.

part 2

that contradicts above, why do that if it's imposed by us? you are also not answering what I said about descriptive is a framework to hide order.

Not too sure what you're saying here.

that is not applicable to my original argument. that's why your answer was irrelevant to begin with. It's also not right because it's not true nothing. but it was that area of nothing I was talking about. that was supposed to be an answer to my questions.

Okay, you brought up the argument in the first place.

I asked a question. you claimed you answered it but your answer didn't apply to what I was talking about. then wont listen to see what it is.



It contradicted your point. you were saying something from noting it says no nothing it is something anyway. it doesn't' really matter because your answer is about the wrong thing.

If you think it did that then a) you don't understand what I was saying and b) you didn't understand what the quote was saying and c) you are misrepresenting what I was saying. I said there was a possibility that the model that Krauss spoke about was an accurate description of the universe.

no stop blathering you are still answering the wrong thing.



Yes that's why it's a paradigm and it's going to shift. so it's not absolute it's not the fortress of facts. its' a description based upon a limited sample so you can't use to rule out God.

Science isn't going to "shift" to something else, it is going to keep using the same methodology as it always has, trying to describe the universe from their experiments and observations, refining the models with more data.

NO no no no no no np! stop pretending like you understand Kuhn, you don't know anything about him. He doesn't scinece becomes something other than scinece, he says scientific confusions are incommensurable becasue standards by which they are judged are based upon paradigms that shift when scientific revolutions happen.

that's what shifts, paradigm. we go from one to another. not to none scinece but to new paradigm.

operationally I have. these are common issues in arguments atheists I'm not using in any wired way that people done usually use them.

You haven't.

talking about defining order? I think it's pretty obvious when I explain by saying "why don't things flee the center of mass" what I"m calling "order." the regularity by which things happen over and over the same way everything we observe them.

are you going to answer it or are you going to pull another little track and say "you didn't define "mean," what do you mean by mean?"

that's just slough. because otherwise you have the gall and temerity to rule out belief in god yet you obviously haven't thought about it.

I rule out a deity because there is no evidence for one, moreover there is evidence that there is no such deity, evolution is a strong argument that there is no deity in my opinion

obviously there is. the order and regularity that you can't explain!

he takes out arguments he can't answer. name calling them rather than dealing with them logically.



but hat could just as easily be the mind of God. you have no empirical evidence.
you are just speculating but if a theist said that atheists would be chiming "there's no before the big bang."

you are obviously just speculating too becasue you agree there is no order, your observations and just man made and limited. You are to observing anything orderly you are just imposing an ideolgoical Meta narrative.


We have no definite answer to the question, "What was before the big bang", there may be some scant evidence around that there was (Penrose's cyclic universes)
you are basing your answer on ideological propaganda and speculation.

Speculation possibly, but science has a proven track record for solving problems and answering questions

only when it' limited to it's own domain. It has no tacking record in ruling out God or explaining the underlying order of things. you are doing a bait and switch.

your observations you admit are "man made" and you are not observing any kind of structure or ofer, you already said that. so you have no track record at all in terms of the larger picture beyond the purely physical workings of the world.

Not really. all you mean by that is that within tine narrow sub framework you use to mark what you are talking about you don't have a neat little A = B kind of causality. bu ti the larger framework it's not coming of total nothing. it's in the realm of physical aw and time, and vacuum flux.

No, there really is no cause for the radioactive decay of a nucleotide. Deal with it. Some things you can only do statistics and probability with, there is no deterministic model that we can apply.

(1) that's not an issue, there doesn't have to be because as I said that's just as much evidence of Mind in creation as causes are.

(2) you don't know that.. your observations are only man made and limited.

Now as a theist I'm not obligated to for causes necessarily it just depends upon what argument I want to push. my new reboot of FITE argument does not require that we disprove all a causal understanding.

So previously, you said that the cause/effect argument required a "mind" now you are throwing all that out?

you are not listening. I said C/e is evidence ordering principle. if QM events are not caused that is not evidence against God becuase the use of non causal and uncertainty principles also require mind, in the context of an ordered universe. Otherwise it would be a deterministic universe.

see? done this way where the mind knows just when to control and just when to let it ride it makes a free will universe. otherwise everything would be real determined.


my argument that the weirdness of a causal principles in the framework with the ordering principles are evidence of mind. Evidence because only a mind would know when to control and when to let it go random. in other words God might play dice with the universe but a non thinking set of deterministic causes could not pay dice.
It is just one description on the phenomena that we see, however it might not be the only way of describing the world that we see. Causality is only one possible way of describing the observed phenomena.
see the point? you need a mind to stop and say "hey this is the place to throw the dice."

I only see that you have stated your opinion, but provided a coherent argument for it.

Obviously I stated my opinion. that' not an answer. I base my onion upon the qaualia we discuss so avoiding a discussion of that qualia is not an answer.

I'm saying a science is fine and good but nature is not impressed. God is not impressed it doesn't mean you know. you may know better than I certainly sure that's true in many ways but you don't know the ultimate answers. you don't know what the framework is or how it got there. you don't know what is being described.

This just seems to be special pleading to me.

how could it be special pleading when I'm taking into account all the phenomena and you are trying to lose the phenomena that embarrassing for you?


I just did. Human attempts at knowledge. Its' a metaphor.

Actually you didn't define anything. I am using specific concepts of scales and you are using some ill-defined ideas and using that to your advantage.

would you know a definition if you saw one? why do you suppose every time you ask I say things like "the order and regularity we observe such as things don't' flee the center of mass." how is that not defining hat I mean by order?