Meet the Furger-Argorock

Farragar

I know I haven't posted in around 1000 years, but after hearing this clip I decided that everyone should listen; it's a one minute, hilarious , takedown of Cs Lewis' 'God exists because we can conceive of him' argument.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/files/Furger-Argorock.mp3

Enjoy!

whatever

I'd listen to more than fifteen seconds if it didn't sound like it was being recorded from under water.

Apreche

Do you really need an mp3 to take down that lame argument? It's too easy.

1) You say god exists because we can conceive of him.
2) We can also conceive of flying purple people eaters.
3) Therefore either flying purple people eaters exist, or god does not.

Apreche

Ok, actually that was pretty funny because the guy arguing for god was so dumb. He obviously doesn't understand what the word "conceive" means.

...

1. Flying Spaghetti Monster.
2. Pink Unicorn.
3. Furger-Argorock

Anything else to add to the list?

Apreche

1. Flying Spaghetti Monster.
2. Pink Unicorn.
3. Furger-Argorock

Anything else to add to the list?

Space teapot?

xyzzy

If someone is colorblind (let's say they can't distinguish between blues and yellows for the sake of argument), then can they truly "conceive" of the concepts of colors in the same way we can? Can they imagine distinct Blue and distinct Yellow, in the same way we can? Or, in saying that they understand blue and yellow, they are framing the concepts in terms of something they already understand through experience?

Similarly, imagine the color of ultraviolet. What does it look like? We can conceive of the concept... but (as far as I know!) nobody has ever truly experienced it, so aren't we just framing the concept into terms we already understand through experience?

Now the Furger-Argorock... it was described as "like a shark", "but without teeth", etc etc... described in terms of known concepts. A flying spaghetti monster, a pink unicorn, or a furger-argorock could exist within the framework of the known and experienced universe (through a very talented mad-scientist / genetic engineer with too much funding). Their descriptions are compilations of concepts from experience, perhaps with some hand-waving concepts like "magic" thrown in.

I'm not trying to say that I agree with C.S. Lewis's assertion that we can't conceive of things that don't exist - I would wager that we can (being creative, artistic, inventive, etc). I just consider the act of conceiving of something new is more difficult than just describing something that doesn't currently exist.

Apreche

I'm not trying to say that I agree with C.S. Lewis's assertion that we can't conceive of things that don't exist - I would wager that we can (being creative, artistic, inventive, etc). I just consider the act of conceiving of somethingnewis more difficult than just describing something that doesn't currently exist.

So are you trying to argue that because the human mind is not all powerful that there must be a god who is?

xyzzy

So are you trying to argue that because the human mind is not all powerful that there must be a god who is?

Nope. I was trying to assert that I believe cobbling together concepts that already exist is not equal to coming up with a new concept that no one has experienced yet. That saying "I conceive of a Furger-Argorock!" does not mean that you have conceived of something that doesn't exist, but just babbled nonsense and are now lumping known qualities into a group that doesn't naturally exist.

I am not saying that God exists just because we can conceive of God, that's nonsense. If I were to try and assert that God exists, I would pursue arguments such as the cosmological argument or maybe the mind-body problem.

Mostly I was just dissatisfied with the strength of the Furger-Argorock refute.

Rym

the cosmological argument

False assumption number one: that there can be no infinite causal chain. False assumption number two: that a "first mover" must be divine. I could go on.

mind-body problem

There's no evidence that any part of our consciousness is non-biological, immeasurable, or undefinable.

Those arguments are both trivially refuted.

Apreche

Those arguments are both trivially refuted.

They are however, not so overused in this forum as to require closing of the thread. Yet...

Diagoras

the cosmological argument

False assumption number one: that there can be no infinite causal chain. False assumption number two: that a "first mover" must be divine. I could go on.

From what I understand, the "first mover" (or if you prefer, "prime mover") was what led to Islam abandoning Aristotelian logic and moving toward what it is today. To me, this suggests that the idea is subjective. Subjectivity is not necessarily realistic. It has no place in a rational argument.

xyzzy

False assumption number one: that there can be no infinite causal chain. False assumption number two: that a "first mover" must be divine. I could go on.

So it's turtles all the way down, then? An infinite, eternal, ever-changing universe, with no beginning and no end? I admit I'd like that better than a "Big Bang" where everything pops out of nothing with no cause. That line of thought makes everything simply a part of the one, big, universal infinite causal chain, with increasing complexity appearing over time... and then there's entropy to consider...

There's no evidence that any part of our consciousness is non-biological, immeasurable, or undefinable.

I can't really argue much there... I think the topic is interesting. If intelligence is purely mechanical, then that certainly bodes well for the creation of artificial intelligences, and merging man and machine and such. I guess I won't be unhappy either way.

Jason

I admit I'd like that better than a "Big Bang" where everything pops out of nothing with no cause.

Perhaps you should read a book.

Apreche

I admit I'd like that better than a "Big Bang" where everything pops out of nothing with no cause.

Perhaps you should read a book.

Clearly. The Big Bang theory does not say that "everything popped out of nothing with no cause". It is your understanding of the science that is lacking, and not the theory itself.

There are mountains and mountains of evidence for the Big Bang. The biggest piece of evidence is the fact that everything is red shift. Basically, thanks to our fancy telescopes, we can see that everything is moving away from everything else. That's not some explanation, it's an observable fact. When you take that and all the other equally true evidence into consideration, the big bang theory is perhaps the most reasonable explanation for those truths ever conceived.

It sucks for you if you don't like reality. The universe isn't going to change to be different just because you don't like it the way it is. I suggest you accept it the way it is, and be happy with that rather than resting on false hope.

xyzzy

Perhaps you should read a book.

I do not appreciate being insulted in this manner. Does this forum not enjoy intelligent discussion? Aren't you interested in why a rational person might hold a different opinion than yourself? You think it's just because I'm a moron that has never read anything about the Big Bang Theory?

Clearly. The Big Bang theory does not say that "everything popped out of nothing with no cause". It is your understanding of the science that is lacking, and not the theory itself.

There are mountains and mountains of evidence for the Big Bang. The biggest piece of evidence is the fact that everything is red shift. Basically, thanks to our fancy telescopes, we can see that everything is moving away from everything else. That's not some explanation, it's an observable fact. When you take that and all the other equally true evidence into consideration, the big bang theory is perhaps the most reasonable explanation for those truths ever conceived.

It sucks for you if you don't like reality. The universe isn't going to change to be different just because you don't like it the way it is. I suggest you accept it the way it is, and be happy with that rather than resting on false hope.

The Big Bang Theory, as I'm sure you know, extrapolates the observed expansion of the universe backwards in time, leading to the conclusion that, as an initial state, the universe was an infinitely energetic, infinitely massive, and infinitely small speck that expanded outward into today's universe. The Big Bang Theory does not and cannot make any statement about why this was the initial state rather than just nothing at all, or what triggered the expansion, or what "expansion" even means - if the universe is infinitely small, what's expanding? How is it you can be comfortable saying that the universe sprang into being from an initial, infinitely massive state and yet not agree that this initial condition "popped out of nothing"? Time and space are related you say, sure, and time too was compressed and contained within this initial speck, such that there is no "before" the expansion in the same way a circle has no end. So time and space, together, expanded out of the infinite energies of the speck of the Beginning, according to the scientific backwards extrapolation from observable data - but the why is not interesting to you? Why this, as opposed to nothing?

Just to be clear, I'm not resting on any false hope - the universe is the way it is, even if we don't fully grasp it. Naturally, as a sane person, I do not expect the universe to bend to my wishes. I never said I don't like reality - indeed, I am quite happy with it. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but neither do I take as given any particular theory, no matter how established. I would think, if your theories are so well founded and logical, that you could argue without resorting to derisive elitism.

Jason

I do not appreciate being insulted in this manner.

Too bad. Nobody called you a moron. I insinuated that you're ignorant. Go read a book and find out why this is science and not philosophy.

Σπεκωσποκ

The Big Bang Theory, as I'm sure you know, extrapolates the observed expansion of the universe backwards in time, leading to the conclusion that, as an initial state, the universe was an infinitely energetic, infinitely massive, and infinitely small speck that expanded outward into today's universe. The Big Bang Theory does not and cannot make any statement about why this was the initial state rather than just nothing at all, or what triggered the expansion, or what "expansion" even means - if the universe is infinitely small, what's expanding? How is it you can be comfortable saying that the universe sprang into being from an initial, infinitely massive state and yet not agree that this initial condition "popped out of nothing"? Time and space are related you say, sure, and time too was compressed and contained within this initial speck, such that there is no "before" the expansion in the same way a circle has no end. So time and space, together, expanded out of the infinite energies of the speck of the Beginning, according to the scientific backwards extrapolation from observable data - but thewhyis not interesting to you? Whythis, as opposed to nothing?

Just to be clear, I'm not resting on any false hope - the universe is the way it is, even if we don't fully grasp it. Naturally, as a sane person, I do not expect the universe to bend to my wishes. I never said I don't like reality - indeed, I am quite happy with it. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but neither do I take as given any particular theory, no matter how established. I would think, if your theories are so well founded and logical, that you could argue without resorting to derisive elitism.

The simplest explanations, it would seem (to me as an untrained person), that the "initial" state was something as opposed to nothing, and that this state would expand into the universe we know and love, are the first two laws of thermodynamics.

A quick search on Wikipedia tells one that the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, the initial state of the universe would have to contain all the energy currently in the universe, or it cannot be considered the universe. The initial state of the universe must be considered the universe, or it would not be its initial state.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system (such as our universe) will tend to increase. Thus, the earliest possible state of the universe must also have the lowest possible entropy (or, in other words, the maximum possible order), and it must increase in entropy (or, in other words, expand).

From this, we can conclude that if the laws of thermodynamics are to be believed, the earliest possible state of the universe must contain at once all the energy in the universe with the maximum possible order in the universe, lending credence to the "infinitely-small-ball-of-energy" concept and the "big bang" concept. Again, I am not a professional in this field, but this is the explanation that makes the most sense to me.

Rym

So it's turtles all the way down, then? An infinite, eternal, ever-changing universe, with no beginning and no end?

You miss the point. The "cosmological argument" is fundamentally flawed in that it begs the question. It uses the "impossibility" of an infinite causal chain as a given, when said idea itself is not proven by any means, and furthermore assumes that this somehow warrants a "first cause" or "divine force." In fact, the cosmological argument is so deeply flawed that it cannot reasonably be debated, as its foundations are themselves unproven and suspect. Turtles all the way down or not, neither in any way indicates the existence of a demiurge or god or anything of the like.

That line of thought makes everything simply a part of the one, big, universal infinite causal chain, with increasing complexity appearing over time... and then there's entropy to consider...

You misunderstand thermodynamics and universe theory. Suffice to say, within our universe, this is exactly what we observe. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, you can't claim that an infinite causal chain is impossible.

I'm not going to mince words: the cosmological argument is a stupid argument that has been decisively rejected.

The Big Bang Theory does not and cannot make any statement about why this was the initial state rather than just nothing at all, or what triggered the expansion, or what "expansion" even means

Not yet, anyway. This lack is due solely to the entropic loss that occurs within a singularity.

Still, it's a moot point. Regardless of what caused it, we have clear evidence that it happened. The mathematical models are predictive and consistent. There is no reason to doubt that the "Big Bang" happened. The only question is what specifically came before.

So time and space, together, expanded out of the infinite energies of the speck of the Beginning, according to the scientific backwards extrapolation from observable data - but thewhyis not interesting to you?

Oh, it's very interesting, but it in no way implies anything divine. You're coming close to begging the question again.

Whythis, as opposed to nothing?

See the fallacy of the "Anthropic Principle." That's like a puddle asking why the hole it's in is perfectly shaped to itself. It's a tired old argument: there's no reason to believe that this existence is any less likely or more special than any other existence or lack thereof, and we have no evidence to the contrary.

xyzzy

The simplest explanations, it would seem (to me as an untrained person), that the "initial" state was something as opposed to nothing, and that this state would expand into the universe we know and love, are the first two laws of thermodynamics.

A quick search on Wikipedia tells one that the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, the initial state of the universe would have to contain all the energy currently in the universe, or it cannot be considered the universe. The initial state of the universe must be considered the universe, or it would not be its initial state.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system (such as our universe) will tend to increase. Thus, the earliest possible state of the universe must also have the lowest possible entropy (or, in other words, the maximum possible order), and it must increase in entropy (or, in other words, expand).

From this, we can conclude that if the laws of thermodynamics are to be believed, the earliest possible state of the universe must contain at once all the energy in the universe with the maximum possible order in the universe, lending credence to the "infinitely-small-ball-of-energy" concept and the "big bang" concept. Again, I am not a professional in this field, but this is the explanation that makes the most sense to me.

This is well explained, thank you.

You misunderstand thermodynamics and universe theory. Suffice to say, within our universe, this isexactlywhat we observe. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, you can't claim that an infinite causal chain is impossible.

I am not trying to dispute any evidence. I am saying that the Big Bang Theory doesn't satisfy the question, and does not describe an infinite causal chain because it does not address how or why there was a singularity to start with.

When the question is "how did all of this come to be?", isn't it evasive to merely point at the evidence and say "well, everything we see appears as if it expanded forth from an initial singularity"? That doesn't answer the question of how the singularity came to be, as opposed to nothing at all. There's no reason to believe that something, as opposed to nothing, should exist at all... except that it does. This is what people mean when they say "everything popped out of nothing" - they assume the natural state is Void, and at some point for some reason there was the singularity from whence everything came.

How is a reasonable person expected to speculate about how the singularity came to exist? Is it enough to say "we don't know"?

I will go back to my books now.

Luke Burrage

Is it enough to say "we don't know"?

Yes.

Rym

Is it enough to say "we don't know"?

In the absence of evidence, "I don't know" is the correct answer. Speculation among scientists exists, and is backed in one way or another by evidence or observation. Speculation that is not backed by these can direct inquiry, but is useless unless said inquiry and speculation is reasonable.

There has been no evidence of anything divine or supernatural in human history. It is thus unreasonable to look to divine or supernatural speculations so long as others still stand untested.