Moral Compass

[Harbal]

Sorry...I picked up the wrong attribution tag. Culpa mea.

But you rejoice too soon. Atla's criticism isn't right, and fails at the most obvious sort of level, as even a moment's thought will show you.

I'm not rejoicing, none of this matters that much to me.
What Atla said sounds fine to me.

It shouldn't. If it does, I'd say you're setting the critical thinking bar on that one way too low.

The idea can be made very, very simple...so simple nobody can miss it. If something is "entropic," it means that it's decaying. If things are decaying, it tells us two things for sure: 1. There was a time when they began, and 2. There is an inevitability to their ultimate dissolution.

The universe is entropic. So we know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the universe had a beginning point and will inevitably have an end state.

It's really that simple. And nothing can be more scientific, empirical or definite.

How is entropy a sign that something had a beginning?

I understand that parts of the universe are subject to entropy, but maybe the universe as a whole somehow regenerates itself; who knows?

You'll also notice that this line of logic contains no statements asking for belief in God. It would all be true even if we didn't think about that at all. It's a totally secular point.

Your reasoning and argument might not be anything to do with the Bible, but your motives for pursuing this so doggedly certainly are; I would stake my life on it.

[Immanuel Can]

How is entropy a sign that something had a beginning?

Oh, that's such a simple deduction! Can you honestly not do it?

Think of yourself. How old are you? What's your rate of decay, in years? If you know that, you can calculate back and find out your own birth date...if not exactly, at least approximately. And one thing you're not in doubt of, is that you had a birth.

Your reasoning and argument might not be anything to do with the Bible, but your motives

This is why ad hominem thinking is so toxic to good sense -- it means stopping thinking logically about the claim, and getting distracted from the truth, one way or the other, by impugning or trusting the motives of the speaker, as if either could change the truth-value of the claim.

[Harbal]

How is entropy a sign that something had a beginning?

Oh, that's such a simple deduction! Can you honestly not do it?

Think of yourself. How old are you? What's your rate of decay, in years? If you know that, you can calculate back and find out your own birth date...if not exactly, at least approximately. And one thing you're not in doubt of, is that you had a birth.

I think you are making rather a big leap by assuming that the universe is like a very big version of me.

Your reasoning and argument might not be anything to do with the Bible, but your motives

This is why ad hominem thinking is so toxic to good sense -- it means stopping thinking logically about the claim, and getting distracted from the truth, one way or the other, by impugning or trusting the motives of the speaker, as if either could change the truth-value of the claim.

It wasn't meant as an ad hominem; it was just an educated guess. I can't be sure, of course, but as you know, I am reluctant to be sure about anything.

[Immanuel Can]

How is entropy a sign that something had a beginning?

Oh, that's such a simple deduction! Can you honestly not do it?

Think of yourself. How old are you? What's your rate of decay, in years? If you know that, you can calculate back and find out your own birth date...if not exactly, at least approximately. And one thing you're not in doubt of, is that you had a birth.

I think you are making rather a big leap by assuming that the universe is like a very big version of me.

I wasn't. I was making an analogy, in order to make it clear to you that what is true of you is also true of the universe: entropy implies both beginning and ending.

[Atla]

His analogy gets even more wrong when we consider that life is seen as negentropic. (At the expense of the entropy of the environment.)

[Harbal]

Oh, that's such a simple deduction! Can you honestly not do it?

Think of yourself. How old are you? What's your rate of decay, in years? If you know that, you can calculate back and find out your own birth date...if not exactly, at least approximately. And one thing you're not in doubt of, is that you had a birth.

I think you are making rather a big leap by assuming that the universe is like a very big version of me.

I wasn't. I was making an analogy, in order to make it clear to you that what is true of you is also true of the universe: entropy implies both beginning and ending.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I have no reason to think you are right.

[Immanuel Can]

I think you are making rather a big leap by assuming that the universe is like a very big version of me.

I wasn't. I was making an analogy, in order to make it clear to you that what is true of you is also true of the universe: entropy implies both beginning and ending.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I have no reason to think you are right.

Aside from science, simple deduction and even the ability to tap into your personal experience of what entropy is like, you're right...you have no other reasons.

[Harbal]

I wasn't. I was making an analogy, in order to make it clear to you that what is true of you is also true of the universe: entropy implies both beginning and ending.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I have no reason to think you are right.

Aside from science, simple deduction and even the ability to tap into your personal experience of what entropy is like, you're right...you have no other reasons.

You really have a problem with folks not believing the same things as you, don't you?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I have no reason to think you are right.

Aside from science, simple deduction and even the ability to tap into your personal experience of what entropy is like, you're right...you have no other reasons.

You really have a problem with folks not believing the same things as you, don't you?

Not at all. A person can believe whatever he wants.

However, not all beliefs are equal, and we're on a philosophy site, so it's quite appropriate for us to sort out which ones are better, and which are...well...not.

[Janoah]

I'm agreeing with you.

NOT WITH ME,

Then my answer is that as far as I can tell, I'm not agreeing with you, or with anybody else who makes such a statement: but maybe I am, depending on what is intended by the poser of the question.

After all, I did not ask you to agree with me or anyone else.
For example, a teacher at school asks You, do You agree that two plus two equals four?
What is Your answer?

[Harbal]

Aside from science, simple deduction and even the ability to tap into your personal experience of what entropy is like, you're right...you have no other reasons.

You really have a problem with folks not believing the same things as you, don't you?

Not at all. A person can believe whatever he wants.

However, not all beliefs are equal, and we're on a philosophy site, so it's quite appropriate for us to sort out which ones are better, and which are...well...not.

In that case, I wish you much success in sorting it out.

[Immanuel Can]

NOT WITH ME,

Then my answer is that as far as I can tell, I'm not agreeing with you, or with anybody else who makes such a statement: but maybe I am, depending on what is intended by the poser of the question.

After all, I did not ask you to agree with me or anyone else.

Did you not write exactly this: "Do you agree that matter follows God?" Those were your exact words.

"Agree" always implies concord between two entities. One of them, you now say, is not you. Okay, with whom are you asking me to agree? Well, you say, "not...anyone else," too. So you're NOT asking me to "agree" with anybody.

That's what you now want me to think?

In that case, "agreeing" isn't involved. There aren't two entities to "agree": there's only one. So you've asked for nonsense. I have no idea how to respond to such an absurd request.

[Immanuel Can]

In that case, I wish you much success in sorting it out.

Your well-wishes are much appreciated, but entirely unnecessary, as it happens. I wasn't "unsorted" on it, in the first place.

[Harbal]

In that case, I wish you much success in sorting it out.

Your well-wishes are much appreciated, but entirely unnecessary, as it happens. I wasn't "unsorted" on it, in the first place.

In that case, may I wish you success in getting someone to agree with you.

[Immanuel Can]

In that case, I wish you much success in sorting it out.

Your well-wishes are much appreciated, but entirely unnecessary, as it happens. I wasn't "unsorted" on it, in the first place.

In that case, may I wish you success in getting someone to agree with you.

That will be entirely dependent on their willingness to think.

Y'know, it's kind of funny...skeptics charge into controversies with Theists, waving words like "rationality," or "truth" or "science" about, because they are naively confident that these things are already on their side. Then, when rationality or science or truth end up being against them, then suddenly rationality, science and truth are no longer the basis of anything for those same skeptics.

It certainly makes one wonder about these so-called "open-minded" and "free thinking" types, who run out of their own kitchen when the heat comes on.