Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I have to confess that I am a thinker with Aristotelian preferences
in that sense, for me, primary experiences
are also a valid method for begin to philosophize
I did not say that the world would be ugly, without Teresas motherless or something
my argument itself is
that our primary perception tells us more
there is something singular in Mother Teresa
then, the argument goes that experience
Of course, this ... says Mr. Arbaiza that - I have no faith in science -
right, right? even in his blog he says:
believe in explaining everything to the future is nothing but an act of faith, by definition
unscientific
well I apply that to the multiverse theory, for now just a speculation I have not accepted as a possibility
In fact Stephen Hawking in his book The Grand Design explains how many universes are generated
the sum history applied Zaidman
Zaidman tells you to calculate the path of a particle
as no one knows where it's going one calculates all possible paths
and take the average, and that is the projected that will predict
Hawking after what it says is that ontological meaning must be given ie the particle
really has come all ... their stories
is like saying, I to calculate, where am going to go to the door, I calculate all possible paths
and go for a road, and then say: parallel universes that you can not see I went by the other paths
multiverse generating mechanism of Hawking, is arbitrary
then, Mr. Arbaiza says there are things that science can not conceive, right?
in fact, this ... speech ...
everything that is timeless, etc. is inherently absurd
Well, it's true because there are scientists who explain things
however, there is not only scientific Mr. Arbaiza there are philosophers
philosophers who not only have to talk of what they can see microscopes and telescopes But the generality of being
and reflect on these things
Mr. Arbaiza says this universe everything to spare
I explained that the fine tuning has to do with all the conditions as a whole because everything is contained
on the opening kickoff that God gave the ball of the big-*** to put it in the angle
of sentient beings arising Mr. Arbaiza say that the ball walked alone
then Mr. Arbaiza, appeals to the argument phone number
I said ... it is unlikely that we any phone number but that need not surprise
and, I imagine I have a deck
any combination of 8 cards is very unlikely to come out right? and you'll be surprised because out a combination
but what if the deck had lyrics
off a combination that says: hello, I am God, and I inform you that I exist
that is specified complexity and is the kind of complexity that exhibits conscious life
this is not any element like any phone number Mr. Arbaiza is something very unique
not the same as any combination of letters
Of course, this ... to see .. this ... Oh Ya,
Mr. Arbaiza has finished answering incocientemente my question about being subsistent
for Mr. Arbaiza, being subsistent is the universe
the big question is: if that be subsisting which has in itself the ground of being
You have to face my anthropological argument
that is, as a purely material consciousness generates so far I've only seen acts of faith
on the fifth dimension and things of that nature I have already criticized Kaluza Klein theory to talk about these things
and have also shown the arbitrariness Hawking the hypothesis in his book The Grand Design
After that Mr. Arbaiza says Uncaused cause, is absurd
I do not understand because it is absurd
it would be foolish not cause cause serious ... that's absurd
or someone who is a cause at the same time does not cause Here what is said, is that God is the cause
from other beings, and is not caused by another being
the Aristotelian principle of Non-Contradiction
defined that something can not be and be both the same light
when I say that God is the cause I mean in reference to the universe
and when I say that it is not caused I mean in reference to another aspect in the sense of not being dependent on a preceding
then, continue to commit the straw man fallacy go to my arguments Mr. Arbaiza
then Mr. Arbaiza says: good, but as we know that this cause is God
by the philosophical analysis of the possibilities given spacetime singularity
ie if nothing comes from nothing we must have
a being timeless and spaceless generating the universe
unless Mr. Arbaiza want to say that the universe is free and puc! emerged!
Well, there are two possible immaterial and timeless entities
numbers, mathematical abstractions, ls equations the laws of logic, are a category
and the other category is a conscious mind with creativity
are two conceivable options I say that both are true or are certain that the mention
but analyze ... numbers or equations Can cause some for themselves?
are mere abstractions, no infrastructure ontological from which cause be
then I do not think a single equation or a physical law can cause the universe from nothing as claimed by Stephen Hawking
Reason why? because nothing may not have properties or restrictions no physical laws
what Hawking postulates, even Vilenkin model are absurd philosophically
I think if there is work to philosophers to clarify, what are the best patterns of thought
in that sense, from a philosophical formulation
I think I've given good reasons not to prove theism 100% so apolitical
but if to say, a position that can reasonably be believed
by rational Thank you.
I am pleased for you to start public signals appears will be interesting
Hey, first, no, I want ...
I find it a bit offensive that you say I'm worried about, not your arguments if not ...
that would, if it were your arguments I've only listened to you talk
I have heard your words, I made annotations
then, I'm not interested. sounds like you're interested in other things
and not in your arguments. I only mean your arguments, then eh ...
I so do not you, now you say bad dichotomy is made that look
scientists over here, philosophers over there and you're the title of philosopher autorrogas
I would say no, you're not a philosopher
not because you do not have formal affair philosopher title but because your reasoning does not seem
the level of a philosopher
and I'll tell you, the scientists also dedicated to study philosophy
In fact I'm taking the mastery of science philosophy
precisely to address this kind of thing
not, right? ...
do not put in charge that scientists over there  and philosophers there, because scientists may be philosophers also
and philosophers of science are
this issue of ...
Stephen Hawking, is false ie, that which you have stated here there is a theory of Stephen Hawking ...
and is inconsistent because ... everything you said is false
I have read directly to Stephen Hawking
I had to buy his book I have not read of popular books
but the scientific article in which they are basing those things
and does not go by that theory aside Stephen Hawking's theory
is, that the universe is a kind of circle
see, and remember a little idea of ​​the universe the eternal return of Nietzsche 108 00:07:55.180 --> 00:07:60.236 that, yes as the universe expands over here by down here is are shrinking 109 00:07:60.251 --> 00:08:05.478 and contains itself, for example I want to give an example Imagine that in a live one ant rule
and ants are more or less in half then someone says
and are progressing .. and someone says, How is it possible that this rule had a beginning?
someone has to having ... must have a ... and says it has a beginning, but it's going to have a beginning? says the other, if ...
yes, something must have caused because we are seeing
that whenever I walk, there is always forward space, backspace
in regulation but an object, a finite object has edges, then
and a finite object has edges multidimensional object, and that if it is standard in physics
as the universe, also has edges these edges are its beginning and end
then, no, uh ... not be extrapolated properties of course
at the beginning and end say, right now I know there is a future 120 00:08:60.428 --> 00:09:07.690 and no past But for the origin of the universe, no future, but there is no past, there is no time
then, if I said: ... just think that the error
to insist that there is a cause a previous cause the universe means
I do not want to admit
there is a moment of the universe that there had been
I insist on the idea that there there is a past, and that past is causal and that is God
and, I insist that Why would god? Why it might not be the thing that no time?
because to be God, would have to be merciful, benevolent, intelligent, totipotent
have a child ... have a holy spirit ... the *** ... and everything else
but only if it is a thing that causes things that can be a material object
then to God, still missing, missing add ... goodness ... and all that kind of stuff which is supposed to have
Now, he says that the universe is packed with planets
then logically, some planet must be suitable for human life
and that's what happens more or less
the same goes for the ...
the same goes for the universes
some universe ... O is, if possible conceive other universes
which is the thesis that, There are other possible phone numbers
then it is also possible
This is one of many and that's why has that feature vital And finally
Yes there is a contradiction, in this issue of the ...
God as a cause ... is, is absurd to say
that everything has a cause
when you like to talk about the uncaused cause
contradiction when I say, first say everything has a cause
metaphysical, physical, whatever everything has a cause
but God has no cause
Do you realize the contradiction? ... nothing more.