Theist Contradictions

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I think you've succeeded, considering we weren't contradicting your point.

Then why'd you post with a masque of disagreement?

[Gods_Mercenary]

I guess we were contradicting your use of the logic or other terms, not the subject of this thread. Either way, we weren't arguing your conclusions in this thread, just your defenition of logic.

[Kamehameha34]

No, you were questioning the fact that my premises are 100% self - relevant.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Kame Don't expect any response from me from now on. I've had enough of this.

Why?

It was my own fault for writing about my point and not just making it.

So I made it, and made sure it was as clear as possible.

Quote by: Gods_M Either way, we weren't arguing your conclusions in this thread, just your defenition of logic.

I was doing both.

I think the conclusions are still based on things that aren't yet proven, and I don't think you can base an argument on something to which the answer is still unknown. Probable, yes, but unknown.

I'm a big fan of "let's assume God is this..." or "let's assume that time itself started with the Big Bang...".

Of course, I always have an amusing picture in my head of God popping into existence with the Big Bang and looking around and saying, "Well crap!! NOW what am I supposed to do?"

Humor aside, I very carefully wrote post 38 to illustrate that even the most sensibly worded arguments against the existence of God are still based on humanity, or on unknowns.

[Kamehameha34]

This message is hidden because Fonceai is on your ignore list.

You now have no reason to address me. Any attempt to do so is just to get the "last word".

[Cephus]

Quote by: rcne When Branes Collide - origins of universe

Yes, that's M-theory, M for Membrane.

In fact, they're sort of kicking around the idea of creating a new universe in the lab, the physics behind it seems to indicate that it's possible.

[Fonceai]

That sounds like something right up there with recreating Big Bangs at CERN... possible chance of ending existence as we know it.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: pahl The Big bang theory sounds just as far-fetched as the creationsist theory, the part about that says that time and space was created in the big bang and did not exist before that.

Well, gravity or atomic theory all sound pretty absurd if you get into specifics. The real argument is whether one, or the other, has been tested, retested and available for scrutiny/revision/review. Unless both are tested, scientifically, then the meaning of "theory" is quite different. One would be scientific theory, the other speculation. To be accurate to the true maening of the phrase one cannot say, for example, "I have a scientific theory." That's not scientific theory, it's personal postulation. Different meaning, far, far, far less substance.

Once again, time and space didn't necessarily start with the Big Bang, and I would seriously doubt the scientific credentials, or the professionalism, of anyone who claims neither time or space could have existed in some form before that.

Strawmen arguments get so damn tiresome because, no matter how many times, or how well, they're debunked, those who need them so desperately to prop up their own beliefs have to keep trying to stand them back up. The only way to get away with that is to ignore those who point out that what they're using to support their arguments has little to no substance, rhetorically.

[Ken Carman]

Deductive reasoning can never be wrong

This sidebar to this topic is interesting. I seriously doubt the above premise. I find deductive reasoning useful, but not without its flaws. I am curious how you came to this conclusion, or what you base it on. Perhaps one of us should start another thread? It's somewhat off topic.

[Fonceai]

There's already a thread about it in Special Debates. Start at Post #15 if you want to avoid the initial lack of clarification.

Regarding the absurdity of theories, it's still hard to say.

One could ask what is more probable?

That the emergence of the universe itself and every single unique cosmic alignment that made it possible for intelligent life to start on Earth is just an incredibly unprobable coincidence?

Or that everything was created?

Ironically, creation is the simpler answer.

[Ken Carman]

That the emergence of the universe itself and every single unique cosmic alignment that made it possible for intelligent life to start on Earth is just an incredibly unprobable coincidence? Or that everything was created? Ironically, creation is the simpler answer.

Understood.

Unless, of course, you use the argument that it happened this way because that's the way it happened. It could very well have happened some other way. I'm sure any sentient beings would be arguing using the same "logic" if it had. I know that sounds absurd, though no more absurd than the "poof" theory.

Also my previous comment that there probably has always been something fits well into "objects in motion tend to stay in motion." If there has always been something, including all the chemical reactions, laws of physics/motion, then it would "evolve" in some manner; and it may well collapse and then begin again.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Ken If there has always been something, including all the chemical reactions, laws of physics/motion, then it would "evolve" in some manner; and it may well collapse and then begin again.

Ahhh, indeed. And for me, that's the flip side of the argument.

As I've written, I don't think the Big Bang created the universe; but instead is part of a continuous cycle regarding matter and energy itself... nothing to do with the empty space.

Bang, Expand, Pause, Compress, Crunch, Rinse, Repeat...

[Cephus]

Quote by: Fonceai That sounds like something right up there with recreating Big Bangs at CERN... possible chance of ending existence as we know it.

Nope, the new universe would immediately split itself off from ours and start expanding into it's own space. Completely safe. It's no different than all the other "big bangs" that our universe creates when it brushes up against others.

[Fonceai]

Ahhh, I understand.

How would we know if we created a new universe, then?

If we did create one, doesn't that make us Gods?

And what if we could not only observe this universe, but manipulate it?

What if it were small enough for us to observe its constants and then influence matter in that universe?

Sounds like a definition of God to me.

Captain Chaos used a definition of God that conforms to this very scenario; a being that created our universe.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Ken Carman This sidebar to this topic is interesting. I seriously doubt the above premise. I find deductive reasoning useful, but not without its flaws. I am curious how you came to this conclusion, or what you base it on. Perhaps one of us should start another thread? It's somewhat off topic.

Deductive reasoning can only yield an incorrect conclusion if the premise is false. False premises are a logical fallacy, therefore contradicting the proof's status as "logic".

[agustine]

To Kamehameha34. With respect to your comment

There are two vital flaws with this viewpoint. First of all, there's no evidence to suggest that nothing existed before the big bang, so to say nothing was there to cause it is simply lazy deduction.

I suspect non-theistic physicists who hold to the proposition that nothing - although I am not sure what you mean by nothing, I would suggest nothing physical - existed before - although the word "before" implies a priority in time when time itself did not exist - the singularity are equally lazy. Take for instance Physicists Paul Davies in his work "Space–time Singularities and Cosmology," in speaking about the initial singularity said "If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of space–time, through such an extremity. For this reason, most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view, the Big Bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of space–time itself." id. ppg 78-79 Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic and the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, calls this the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science. see "The Astronomer and God," p. 22. Interestingly, there are also theistic physicists who take a similar position. Take for instance Arno Penzias, the winner of the Nobel Prize along with Robert Wilson of Bell Labs for their discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation which has been termed as the very echo of the big bang. Dr. Penzias compared the data amassed so far relative to the origins of the universe accordingly, "The best data we have," he said, "are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole. . . . The creation of the universe is supported by all the observable data astronomy has produced so far." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, September 1994 Now, I am not suggesting that this is denotative proof for theistic explanations for the origin of the universe, however I am suggesting that your assertion that the theistic conclusion you described as "lazy" is patently incorrect. With respect to your comment

Before I get into the "second of all", let me touch on a belief of many theists that their deity somehow transcends the laws of logic. All they are doing in this admission is suggesting that their deity does not follow the laws of logic. Anything that does not follow such laws are deemed logically impossible.

Please cite the theists that have taken this position. Also, would you please identify what specific contradictions to which you refer. Thank you...

Augustine

[Kamehameha34]

To say nothing existed before the big bang is lazy deduction, nomatter who says it.

And no, I don't need to cite any examples of theists supporting that claim. You'll find examples in this thread.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Deductive reasoning can only yield an incorrect conclusion if the premise is false. False premises are a logical fallacy, therefore contradicting the proof's status as "logic".

I'm only going to comment on this one more time. Nothing to do with you at all, I would just rather not stray too much topic-wise.

if the premise is false

A premise is an assumption. Assumptions can be...

A. Wrong, as far as we know now
B. Over simplified
C. partially wrong
D. About half right
E. Half-witted to extremely deceitful attempts to screw up honest debate and discussion

Let's skip the last one I type... just for fun. And let's top it off with...

F. A premise can be mostly right.

Being one who doesn't believe in absolutes, that's why I phrased the last one that way, this also opens up yet another can of rhetorical slugs that would get us OT. Best not to drag down the thread. Yet, I find neither logic or any premise to be "pure," and much like good science... always up to be tested, retested... If we lived in a black and white world where there is only "false" and "true," I would accept your premise. But, obviously, we don't agree.

Previous example given about a world or planet where no one is blue... the assumption that no one is blue would include: we can see, or detect, all shades or hints of blue, or that pigment is no where within their spectrum, or even that we have checked everyone completely just to be sure. All rather bold assumptions that probably are over-generalizations so, therefore, given black and white reasoning... probably would have to labelled "false." Too many possibilities to do otherwise.

My comment would be, generally, "no one is blue" is probably true. It's like saying one plus one equals two. As long as we agree these are two of anything that are absolutely alike, yet separate, items, yes.. they equal what we call "2." But no one thing is ever exactly like something else, though using such calculations can certainly be close enough to base mathematics on, or decide when to fire an engine for reentry, or...

[Kamehameha34]

A premise has to be correct, or it is logicall fallacious. It's in Wiki's list of fallacies. I understand that accepting a false premise will yield a false conclusion, but that's why we can only logically accept definitions of premises, to disprove what they define and under what conditions they are disproven.

[agustine]

To Kamehameha34. Despite the fact that your argument is woefully ad hominem, to wit: lazy deduction, how then do you form the opinion that a deduction is lazy, especially when the argumentation employed is inductive and not deductive. I am referring to the argumentation relative to the origin of the universe. Thank you....

Augustine