Theist Contradictions

[Kamehameha34]

A very big argument posed by Christians, and theists in general, is that people who believe in the big bang theory believe in acausality.

This is a valid point, because the big bang was, theoretically, the explosion from which all matter, and time itself, originated. If there was nothing to cause it, how did it happen?

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.

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. This could apply to any set of laws. Your deity transends physics? Fantastic, your deity is physically impossible.

With that out of the way..

What do you propose made your god come into being?

[kubedawg]

If the diety created the universe, how hard is it to believe that the diety is above logic, or created logic?

[Fonceai]

@kubedawg

Why presume that the Big Bang created the universe?

If the Big Bang is nothing more than the end/beginning of a cycle, then the empty space was always there.

It remains unknown.

[Jack]

Why is this thread in Society&Rights?

[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 question of the beginning is one of regression. What caused the thing that caused the universe? Theists attempt to end this regression by suggesting "god", but that in no way ends the regression. Aside from being completely unevidenced, a god capable of creating the universe would have to be very complex & sophisticated... and we know from evidence that complex & sophisticated things are the process of many small accumulations. Offering god as an explanation does not terminate the regress; it makes it worse as we now need to figure out what caused god.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Fonceai @kubedawg Why presume that the Big Bang created the universe? If the Big Bang is nothing more than the end/beginning of a cycle, then the empty space was always there. It remains unknown.

I wasn't presuming that, i was just arguing Kame's argument regarding logic.

[Fonceai]

Ahh, okay. I just read the OP.

He's confusing "rules of logic" with "laws of science".

"Rules of logic" is a term dictating how to construct a valid argument.

"Laws of science", however, is what he should have described.

---

The "laws of science" argument has two opposing views.

1. Using the "laws" argument against the possibility of God is used by people who use their own defintion, or a specific religion's defintion, of what God is. Then they use human definitions and the current human laws of science to show that what defines God is contradictory.

This is commonly done with the tri-omni God concept. Omnipotence implies breaking the laws of science, so God can't be omnipotent. Omniscience implies knowing everything, but what defines God as omniscient also defines humans as possessing a free will. If we have free will, how can God know what we'd do. So God can't be omnipotent. Omnibenevolence implies that God would save innocents from suffering, but since innocents suffer, God can't be omnibenevolent.

Since God "can't be" those three things, then God can't exist.

The problem with this argument is that to define something, you have to know what it is. Since there is no consensus on the nature of God then no single defintion applies. It also means that we cannot presume the reasons or motivations of such a being (as told to me in another thread, how can you know someone based on one aspect of their behavior, let alone based on what someone else tells you about that person).

This invalidates that God has to be tri-omni.

The other problem is that laws of science change. A more intelligent arguer would throw in a simple qualifier like "at this time" or "according to current knowledge". But the more general the statement, the more possible exceptions. Making the statement absolute means that basing an argument on current laws of science (which are changeable), especially an argument about an undefined concept, is invalid.

2. Using the "laws" argument for the possibility of God is used by people who suggest that God somehow "programmed" or "coded" the universe. Regardless of their exact wording, the idea they present, that God is outside the laws of universe, is conceptually similar to something as simple as a parent and child relationship. You establish rules for your children that don't apply to you. And as the child matures, those laws are just as changeable.

Or to use the computer programming concept it's illustrated in video games. Especially games where the lives of those in the game are limited in their ability. They can't reprogram their environment, but you can.

Hell, there is the "Black and White" series of games where you are a God and your followers can't do certain things because of the way the game is programmed, but you can do those things.

The problem with this argument is that it represents a big fat God of Gaps excuse. It basically says that we don't know how the universe was created or what the rules are, but whatever they are they were set that way from the beginning.

It is viewed as dismissive to consider that God made it this way and then left it to run as is.

Or some people have a preconceived idea of what God should be... the self-definition mentioned above... and just can't accept that God would be hands-off.

---

The point is that the same chunk of factual information can be used to argue for or against God. Usually it involves one side saying that that information disagrees with a certain definition of God... and the other side saying that you can't define God, that those are only specific Gods not the overlying concept of God, or that it just doesn't apply because God transcends rules.

No one will win, and any thread trying to point out contradictions and stir up debate is just looking for a fight on a topic that can't be won.

For me, non-persona, I'll just argue both sides for my own amusement and to show the typical excuses both sides make to show they are right.

[Zhavric]

The problem with this argument is that to define something, you have to know what it is. Since there is no consensus on the nature of God then no single defintion applies.

Post-modernism ridiculousness.

You stated very plainly "If god is X then god cannot exist because of reason Y."

I've yet to see a definition of god where some derivative of that syllogism doesn't apply.

The other problem is that laws of science change.

Imagine for a moment you're watching a game of NBA Basketball. One of the players blatantly and flagrantly fouls a member of your favorite team giving him a bloody nose. The referee decides not to call a foul on the grounds that the rules of basketball can change and that we really can't know anything about it or what's going on. Most of us would throw something at our television screen and demand the ref be taken out of the game.

Fonceai, if he wants to be consistant, would say, "Oh, I completely agree with that call."

The laws of science change when we have reason to change them supported by evidence. This entire bit of your argument is laughable...
Scientists aren't huddled around fax machines waiting to see what the list of scientific laws will be for that specific day nor do they apply their craft based on that day's "memo". Science neither fears change nor does it conduct itself as though nothing has been proven / everything is "up in the air".

Your implication that we cannot base claims on science because it may change is ridiculous. If new evidence comes along that invalidates old evidence, then and only then do we review earlier claims made. So, if we find a way, someday, to create energy, that's fine. I'll be the first to state an omnipotent being no longer contradicts existing proven claims. Until that day, the claim that a tri-omni god exists is still false until proven true.

Thus, your assertion the "same chunk of factual information can be used to argue for or against God" fails utterly.

[Kamehameha34]

Fonce, if you had taken the "rules of logic" thing in context, you'd realize that I was just pointing that out so theists couldn't say "well god doesn't follow the rules of logic!" when faced with the fact that they can no longer apply the "acausality" label to anything regarding the big bang, and not their own god.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 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.

Not only is it a lazy deduction, it's pretty ridiculous for anyone who understands M-theory. If that's true, we not only know what caused the Big Bang, but can explain all of the matter and energy that we see.

Of course, to theists, it isn't about going where the evidence leads, it's poking holes in anything that violates their beloved mythology. They don't care about reality, just in perpetuating their own belief system.

[rcne]

If you follow physics you have an alternative to a theist answer...
When Branes Collide - origins of universe Science News - Find Articles

When Branes Collide - origins of universe

If you don't feel like reading it - in a nutshell, our universe came into existence when two other universes slapped together.

I prefer the oscillation theory myself (bang,crunch,bang...repeat..), but each offer a more rational explanation for the Bang than because God said so.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 A very big argument posed by Christians, and theists in general, is that people who believe in the big bang theory believe in acausality. This is a valid point, because the big bang was, theoretically, the explosion from which all matter, and time itself, originated. If there was nothing to cause it, how did it happen? 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. 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. This could apply to any set of laws. Your deity transends physics? Fantastic, your deity is physically impossible. With that out of the way.. What do you propose made your god come into being?

Good catch, on the acausality argument, because I don't believe the Big bang was impossible without god. You're also right that if He transcends logic, He is logically impossible, but that doesn't matter if He transcends logic, does it.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: rcne I prefer the oscillation theory myself (bang,crunch,bang...repeat..), but each offer a more rational explanation for the Bang than because God said so.

Hmm... I wonder what books you've been reading...

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary but that doesn't matter if He transcends logic, does it.

"God can't exist."
"Why not?"
"Because if God existed, He/She/It would transcend logic."
"... And?"

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: kubedawg If the diety created the universe, how hard is it to believe that the diety is above logic, or created logic?

Interesting. We're having this very same discussion on another thread. For those who wish to view how we touched upon the subject there, trying scrolling down to my post on the topic, go forward to see responses, and go back to see previous comments.

As far as what the quote above states, is it hard? Of course not. It's also not hard to believe that gremlins or Merlin, or real magic exists. I'm not trying to insults theists here. I'm only stating that if one uses the argument that God is above logic... etc, it proves or convinces no one.

I could use the same argument and argue for Zeus, the Great Spaghetti monster or any other deity. It's a non-starter discussion-wise. We could debate fairies that way still get nowhere.

I believe, if there is a God, which I think there is, then the universe is designed like a watch. The Creator doesn't make the minutes tick, or the second hand sweep, or the digits change. He (?) may not have even created the base materials. Things, like perhaps the Big Bang and whatever expansions or contractions happened previously, happen because it's all designed to work that way.

God is the elephant in this whole mess being described by the blind, IMO, and as the cliche'd story goes. One man has the trunk and thinks God's a snake, another... well if we could get off our ego and power trips; all the different faiths, maybe we'd be able, together, to ascertain better who the Creator(s?) is (are?)... or might be. In some ways that's the direction Joseph Campbell leads us.

What do I base my beliefs on? Well, I could say observation, all the theological texts I've read... and the ones that "debunk" them, or a feeling, all the wisdom both believers and non-believers have passed on to me, or a sense of what just seems to make sense. But I know, as one person with limited knowledge and experience, like we all have limited knowledge and experience, I could be quite wrong. Even if I had more information, more experience, all I might be doing is adding to the clutter. So what do I base my beliefs on? Pretty much nothing, in the larger scheme of the universe, as we all do. Most humans are just too damn arrogant to admit that. Nothing wrong with believing in itself, however. What we do with it? That's another matter.

But, then again, this may all be absolute rubbish and things happened this way because that's just the way they happened. They could just as well have happened many other ways.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I agree with you on the elephant analogy, which is why being closed to other perspectives, even atheist's, is stupid, we are all trying to find the truth together.

[another day]

Quote by: kubedawg If the diety created the universe, how hard is it to believe that the diety is above logic, or created logic?

Logic is not something you can abide by or not abide by. That is not the nature of logic. It's not some intangible establishment...logic is the fundamental thing that allows anything to function. Please attain a better understanding of what the term "logic" REALLY means before you say that something can simply "exist outside" of it, because that is not a reasonable argument.

[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.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Good catch, on the acausality argument, because I don't believe the Big bang was impossible without god. You're also right that if He transcends logic, He is logically impossible, but that doesn't matter if He transcends logic, does it.

There's no such thing as "transcending logic". If you define god in a way that is logically impossible if you accept causality as a premise, then god can not exist in a universe of causality.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: another day Logic is not something you can abide by or not abide by. That is not the nature of logic. It's not some intangible establishment...logic is the fundamental thing that allows anything to function. Please attain a better understanding of what the term "logic" REALLY means before you say that something can simply "exist outside" of it, because that is not a reasonable argument.

Prove that something can't exist outside of logic.. What logic really means doesn't matter, it's a human defenition that can very well be wrong.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 There's no such thing as "transcending logic". If you define god in a way that is logically impossible if you accept causality as a premise, then god can not exist in a universe of causality.

Who said I accept causality as a premise?