Theist Contradictions

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: agustine To Kamehameha34. Despite the fact that your argument is woefully ad hominem..

Umm.. This warrants a rather juvenile "lol".

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...

Inductive reasoning only proves that something is possible. To speak with such dogma about a possible conclusion is lazy.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Fonceai How would we know if we created a new universe, then?

I don't know all the details, I just know it's being kicked around.

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

Considering all we'd do is kick it off, we'd have no control over what happened in it and presumably, we'd never be able to influence anyone that might evolve in it, that's a pretty crappy definition of a god, wouldn't you say?

[Fonceai]

Not necessarily.

It's the one Captain Chaos posed in his Special Debate.

Nothing more than "God = Creator of the Universe"

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai It's the one Captain Chaos posed in his Special Debate. Nothing more than "God = Creator of the Universe"

Are you kidding? That "debate" was a joke. I'll summarize it for you:

Captain Chaos: "Zhavric, with absolutely no evidence and quite sure that what I'm about to say definately contradicts scientific law and may be logically impossible, god is defined as anything he needs to be to dodge your very logical objections."

We were about three posts shy of CC claiming God is actually a Ken doll...

[Fonceai]

Any definition is just as valid as any other.

Besides, this merits a "settle down".

If you read again, you'll see I was pointing out that a definition limited to "creator" has already been suggested on this site.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric Are you kidding? That "debate" was a joke. I'll summarize it for you: Captain Chaos: "Zhavric, with absolutely no evidence and quite sure that what I'm about to say definately contradicts scientific law and may be logically impossible, god is defined as anything he needs to be to dodge your very logical objections." We were about three posts shy of CC claiming God is actually a Ken doll...

Yay! Appeal to ridicule!


Zhavric: "Unless you define "god" so I can disprove it, you have no business calling your definition godly."

Fantastic.:rolleyes:

[Cephus]

Quote by: Fonceai Any definition is just as valid as any other.

No it's not.

God is a tree.
God is an invisible gas coming out of my ass.
God is an alien.

Just sticking a random idea at the end of "God is" doesn't make it valid or worthwhile.

[Kamehameha34]

I assume that he meant any definition of god that includes "creator of the universe" is just as valid as any other.

[belverron]

My favorite is the "first cause" explanation of God. There must have been a cause for the universe and everything we know to come into being, right? After all, it can't just stretch back infinitely. Enter God ... who is, by the way, infinite :eek:

[agustine]

To Kamehameha34. With respect to your comment

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

Why?

Augustine

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: belverron My favorite is the "first cause" explanation of God. There must have been a cause for the universe and everything we know to come into being, right? After all, it can't just stretch back infinitely. Enter God ... who is, by the way, infinite :eek:

Well, phrased my friend, well phrased.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: agustine To Kamehameha34. With respect to your comment Why? Augustine

(In response to...)

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

Saying something happened millions and millions of years ago that got us to where we are today in no way assumes what did or didn't exist, or happen, before that. I would define one way of making a "lazy" deduction is to look at evidence from pont A until now and assume there was nothing before there was a point A. Nothing sets Big Bang in stone as the absolute first event here except the assumption... of those who wish, once again, to prop us this strawman as "evidence" of a creator.

Does it "prove" that there is no creator?

No, in its own way, would be a lazy deduction.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Cephus No it's not. God is a tree. God is an invisible gas coming out of my ass. God is an alien. Just sticking a random idea at the end of "God is" doesn't make it valid or worthwhile.

Sidebar time!

Perhaps these phrases are not as far from the truth as you think.

Paraphrased...

"Turn over a rock and you will find me..."

Follow that with... look at a tree and you will see me.

Expand it.... explore my creation and you will find me.

Finally... have a colonoscopy and...


...is God Mr. Hankey?

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Zhavric Before anyone posts anything else there's a clarification we need to make. When we're dealing with the Big Bang, we're dealing with the start of time. Thus, the statement "before the Big Bang" is nonsensical because we cannot have negative time. It would be like talking about that home run that the Indians hit before the first inning started or discussing the person who held the office of the American presidency before George Washington. That being said, the cyclical theory that Fonceai mentioned doesn't work with the Big Bang theory because it implies there were Big Bangs before the Big Bang and also that we're going to have a Beginning that comes AFTER things have been set in motion.

The cyclical theory or 'Multiverse', or the Infinite Matrix concept does work in present theoreticl and mathamatical models for the nature of existence beyond the universe.

[Fonceai]

That, and to deny it is to apply a specific definition to the Big Bang... something that remains unknown and undefined, to some degree.

[Ken Carman]

Before anyone posts anything else there's a clarification we need to make. When we're dealing with the Big Bang, we're dealing with the start of time.

Says who? Since when? One might suggest "the start of time as we know it," but anything else is speculation... at best.

Ah, once again this strawman argument is propped up.

SIGH.

...or discussing the person who held the office of the American presidency before George Washington.

Actually, one could do that. It is argued that those who were head of the government before the Constitution, under the Articles, couldn't be called "presidents," although many did.

LOOK HERE.


Or HERE.

Or HERE.

That being said, the cyclical theory that Fonceai mentioned doesn't work with the Big Bang theory because it implies there were Big Bangs before the Big Bang and also that we're going to have a Beginning that comes AFTER things have been set in motion.

Actually, it does work. The operative phrase that makes your statement an inaccurate assessment of what he was saying is "after." There is no "after," if he is correct. Things in motion tend to remain in motion. Remember that? Compress, bang, retract, compress, bang...

It's certainly not the only possibility, but it's one.

[Runa216]

Hmm, interesting Debate. I don't have much to say, other than I don't believe in a higher power OR the big bang. I believe that the concept of the beginning of time is incomprehensible to our Feeble brains, and that anything concerning it is mere speculation and theory, so therefore, I will not have faith in any explanation.

[Lotharia]

Why would one jump to the conclusion that there was a beginning? Along with this "first cause" guy, there's the possibility that it didn't begin, that it always was. "I dont know" is a much better answer than "some god did it" when you don't know.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Runa216 Hmm, interesting Debate. I don't have much to say, other than I don't believe in a higher power OR the big bang. I believe that the concept of the beginning of time is incomprehensible to our Feeble brains, and that anything concerning it is mere speculation and theory, so therefore, I will not have faith in any explanation.

The big bang doesn't claim to be the beginning of time nor of matter, just the beginning of the expansion of this universe from a tiny speck. There very well could be an infinite number of universes floating around in existance, according to this theory, each one of them continually contracting and expanding.