| Advertise Here » Browse ad-free by donating | |
|
|
| The Debate Forums | Blogs | | | Donate | Register (it's free) | Chatroom | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||||
 |
| | Thread Tools |
Jan 31, 2007, 01:56 pm
| #102 (permalink) (top) | |
 Made of pure win.  Posts: 3,809 | Quote:
| |
|  |
|
Jan 31, 2007, 02:30 pm
| #104 (permalink) (top) | |
| Made of pure win. Posts: 3,809 | Quote:
Planning on pulling your usual: Inventing defective fallacies that you need me to correct for you? Post-modernist wishy-washyness? Ignoring evidence? Contempt for common sense? | |
|
| |
|
Jan 31, 2007, 02:33 pm
| #105 (permalink) (top) | |
| BANNED Location: New York Posts: 4,217 | Quote:
Provide a link or some sort of reference to "the evidence" that you say needs to be reviewed. I'm specifically doing this so that others receiving your comments can see that you are not exempt from supporting your statements. They don't have tangible evidence of God's existence, but neither do you have any for God's non-existence. Support your claim, or back down. | |
| |
|
Jan 31, 2007, 02:35 pm
| #106 (permalink) (top) | |||||||||
| Molten Ash  Posts: 50 | Quote:
Let's review what I said again and see if you actually address it this time: "God existing eternally" follows from the logical deduction that an infinite regress of events is absurd/impossible and that for there to exist anything, something has to have existed forever If something didn't exist forever, then there is a infinite series of events that goes on and on and on, forever. With one event bringing about another event which brings about another event, which was brought about by a previous event, etc. etc. etc. Clearly this is "nonsensical" and the only alternative to an infinite regress of events is if something existed forever (because if it didn't exist forever, it was caused by something else, which was caused by something else etc.). And for various reasons, theists believe this "something" to be God...and we're now left with you declaring "god existed forever" a "cop-out" without ANY justification. It logically follows that God would have to exist forever in order to truly be "God" and you've given us no reason to believe otherwise. Just you calling it a cop-out with zero justification or explanation as to why. Quote:
Stick to the topic at hand and quit trying to distract with these silly red-herrings (a logical fallacy). This is a debate about God being able to exist forever (which you've arbitrarily and lemmingly parroted Dawkins in calling it a "cop-out") - if you want to debate that there are some atheists that think the universe came from nothing or that there is an infinite regress of events, then by all mean start another thread and I'll gladly elaborate there and show you whole articles written by Smith and others explaining that the universe came from nothing. If not, then quit trying to drag this thread off-topic. I'll not reply to anymore off-topic portions of your post. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let's take for a moment your arbitrary dismissal of "God exists forever". Even if I say "I don't know what created God", this is no different than anyone saying "I don't know what created [some non-god hypothesis that created the universe]". Somehow you've become scared of questions...well, I'm sorry but I thought the whole scientific process was to be about ANSWERING these questions. Somehow we've now declared that questions are bad. I'm glad that Darwin didn't apply this sophmoric thinking, I can imagine a conversation between Darwin and Dawkins right before Darwin came up with the ToE and upon discussing origin of species: Dawkins: How did species come to be? Darwin: Well, I believe they evolved. Dawkins: What?! That brings up more questions than it solves. How did these species evolve? What mechanisms were involved? How did those mechanisms get started? Darwin: This is how scientific inquiry works, newb. You answer one question and then are tasked with answering the other questions that crop up, so STFU! Also, quite declaring yourself my "Bulldog", you couldn't hold Huxley's jock, homo. So even if we arbitrarily dismiss "God existed forever" - there is still no more problems for the theist than the atheist. And having unanswered questions isn't a problem in the first place - it's the instigator of scientific inquiry. But no Zhavric, we don't just take your un-elaborated, unsupported assertions as the Gospel truth. "God existed forever", is the most logical answer on the origins of God and it follows from the fact that an infinite/un-ending series of events is impossible. Quote:
I have explained that "God exists eternally" follows from the logical deduction that there cannot be an infinite regress of events. The only way for there NOT to be an infinite regress of events is if something existed eternally. The only reason I see you declaring "god exists forever" a "cop-out" is because it easily answers the question of "where did God come from?". Quote:
Quote:
P.S. Dawkins whole BOOK is an appeal to ridicule so I wouldn't bring this up if I was you. Quote:
Last edited by Destroyer; Jan 31, 2007 at 03:46 pm. | |||||||||
|
| |
|
Jan 31, 2007, 04:08 pm
| #107 (permalink) (top) | |
| Made of pure win. Posts: 3,809 | Quote:
Are you agnostic towards those things? They're every bit as fabricated as god. Things that violate existing proven claims (like god) are, as you yourself agreed, false until proven true. | |
|
| |
|
Jan 31, 2007, 04:35 pm
| #108 (permalink) (top) | |||||||||||
| Made of pure win. Posts: 3,809 | Quote:
It's a cop out. Quote:
Please. If you didn't want your assertions laughed at, you should have backed them up with something more than a dropped name and a second rate arm chair philosopher. Quote:
Quote:
Whatever happened at the beginning, we need a crane, not a skyhook. A crane is an hypothesis that takes into account natural occurances and allows for logic, reason and evidence... a progression of events leads from point a to point b like a crane lifting a heavy load. A skyhook is a "complex" explanation that jumps from point a to point b without giving any explanation of how the transition happened. The heavy load goes from the ground to being suspended in the sky. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Dawkins mentions Darwin often and uses natural selection as an example of a simple answer vs ID which is a complex one. Quote:
Quote:
You haven't made a logical deduction. You've made an assumption based on unsound premises. If we are faced with an infinite regress, god doesn't solve it. You've simply arbitrarily decided the regress terminates and called that termination "god". It's not a valid hypothesis because it causes more questions than it answers. Quote:
| |||||||||||
|
| |
|
Jan 31, 2007, 04:45 pm
| #109 (permalink) (top) | |
| Molten Ash Posts: 50 | Quote:
Your only reason for it being a cop-out is because you say that I think everything must have a cause. Incorrect/Strawman. I've only argued that everthing that BEGINS TO EXIST must have a cause. Therefore, you have no valid reason for calling it a cop out (and eternal beings don't have a beginning). I'll respond to the rest in another post as this was our main point of contention and you've simply failed at finding any valid reasons for calling it a cop-out. | |
|
| |
|
Jan 31, 2007, 04:49 pm
| #110 (permalink) (top) | |
| BANNED Location: New York Posts: 4,217 | Quote:
Okay. You're right, I agreed that your "existing proven claims" nonsense is valid in logic and science. But since there is no evidence of "proven claims", that statement does not apply to god. | |
|
| |
|
Jan 31, 2007, 05:06 pm
| #111 (permalink) (top) | |
| Made of pure win. Posts: 3,809 | Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
Jan 31, 2007, 05:17 pm
| #113 (permalink) (top) | |||||||||
| Molten Ash Posts: 50 | Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What questions won't exist for any non-God hypothesis of the origin of the universe that exist for the God hypothesis? Quote:
Also, "Natural Selection" is an answer to a question "How did we evolve?". Before we knew how we evolved, "We evolved" raised a ton of questions that we had no answer to ("How did we evolve", "by what mechanism did we evolve" etc.) So if Darwin was using your logic, he'd simply refuse to say "We evolved" because "it causes more questions than it solves". And we STILL have tons of questions on how species evolve and the exact mechanisms involved in natural selection - so merely having unanswered questions or a ton of unanswered questions is no determiner of the validity of a theory...indeed we still have a ton of unanswered questions about evolution but you wouldn't be too quick to denounce it, now would you? Quote:
1:Many HAVE argued that God is indeed "simple" 2: Whatever questions may arise with the God hypothesis, similar, if not the same questions will arise with any non-God hypothesis you think of as well 3: You're still assuming that whatever began the universe would have to be following the laws OF this universe, when the laws OF this universe weren't even in existence at the time as the universe itself didn't even exist. Quote:
Oooookkkkaaaay. I know Dawkins mentions Darwin and is aware of Darwin (Duh!), it was a parody on how Dawkins argument would look if he proposed it to Darwin when he was coming up with the ToE. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1: Hypothesis that cause more questions than they answer aren't valid 2: The God hypothesis causes more questions than it answers 3: Therefore the God hypothesis isn't valid. Now let's apply this all the way back to when Darwin was coming up with the ToE. 1:Hypothesis that cause more questions than they answer aren't valid 2: "We Evolved" is a hypothesis that causes more questions than it answers (it answers one "How species came to be", and raises many questions - "What mechanisms does evolution use", "where did those mechanisms come from", "how do the mechanisms work" etc. etc.) 3: Therefore the "Evolution Hypothesis" isn't valid. There it is Zhavric, that's how it would look back in the days when evolution was just a hypothesis. We wouldn't have discovered evolution because it "raised more questions than it solved". In fact, I can't think of ANYTHING we would have discovered it we'd follow your method. Any hyphothesis that answers one question but brings up 2 or more questions would default to "false"/invalid under your view...like I said, this would render ANY hypothesis at ANY time THROUGHOUT history as false. This "logic" you are using should seem intuitively absurd to anyone looking at this without his bias goggles on. Last edited by Destroyer; Jan 31, 2007 at 06:59 pm. | |||||||||
|
| |
|
Jan 31, 2007, 05:55 pm
| #114 (permalink) (top) | |||||
| Molten Ash Posts: 50 | Quote:
I elaborated more later: If something didn't exist forever, then there is a infinite series of events that goes on and on and on, forever. With one event bringing about another event which brings about another event, which was brought about by a previous event, etc. etc. etc. Clearly this is "nonsensical" and the only alternative to an infinite regress of events is if something existed forever (because if it didn't exist forever, it was caused by something else, which was caused by something else etc.). And for various reasons, theists believe this "something" to be God...and we're now left with you declaring "god existed forever" a "cop-out" without ANY justification. It logically follows that God would have to exist forever in order to truly be "God" and you've given us no reason to believe otherwise. Just you calling it a cop-out with zero justification or explanation as to why. So, to repeat: Game.Over. Your ONLY argument as to why "God existed forever" is a "cop-out" is because you claimed that I said that everything has to have a cause. I didn't, I said those things that BEGIN TO EXIST need a cause. After pointing this out, you shifted and claimed 'but you haven't given us reasons as to why God is eternal'. I've now pointed out that I have already done this(see above). Game. Over. So again, you have NO valid reason for calling it a cop-out. Your only real response to my reasons for God being eternal has be to say 'but the God hypothesis is still invalid because brings up more questions than it solves, therefore it's invalid'. First off, you might want to read my last post on this. Secondly, this absurd argument applies to ANY God hypothesis, but notice that this isn't a debate on the existence of God, but rather, the attributes of God - you claimed that I couldn't say "God exists forever" because "it's a cop-out". THAT's what we've been debating here, but you've subtely shifted it to the God hypothesis in general. Very well, is an hypothesis invalid if it raises more questions than it answers? I certainly think not, in fact, I would argue that ALL hypothesis do this. Hypothesis usually answer only 1 question, but they ALWAYS bring up more questions than they answer. "We evolved" answers the origin of species, but brought about questions such as "how did we evolve", "by what mechanism did we evolve" etc. And any hypothesis about the origin of the universe will be the same. X began the universe (the hypothesis answered one question), but how did X come to be? is X eternal? what caused the cause of X? etc. Therefore, according to the zany logic of Zhavric and Dawkins no hypothesis as to the origins of the universe is valid because they all bring up more questions than they answer. In fact, in the zany world of Zhavric and Dawkins, ALL hypothesis are invalid for the same reason. Again, see my last post on this for more. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
*This number is only an estimate Last edited by Destroyer; Jan 31, 2007 at 07:03 pm. | |||||
|
| |
|
Feb 1, 2007, 05:25 am
| #115 (permalink) (top) | |
| Kuldeep Location: Bhopa, M.P, India Posts: 1,721 | Quote:
Please re-read my post and find for sure, have I really said this world is infinte!!!!:( The point is not whether or not our universe is infinite, the point is whether it has been created or existed eternally.  You might have gone through number of posts of Destroyer in this thread who has very nicely explained the eternity of God due to infinite number of series of events happening around. I out rightly support his view that God existed eternally, rather it reflects in everything conceivable and non-conceivable as consciousness of infinite levels...explained in my previous post to some extent. | |
|
| |
|
Feb 1, 2007, 06:44 am
| #116 (permalink) (top) | |
| slipping sand  Posts: 1,996 | Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
Feb 1, 2007, 10:40 am
| #117 (permalink) (top) | ||
| Molten Ash Posts: 50 | Quote:
And most modern mathematicians and philosophers have abandoned infinite regress or an infinite "set" of things....and for good reason. Some philosophical/mathmatical terms should be defined here - an "actual infinite" is a technical term that is found in set theory that refers to sets and collections (like your infinite regress). An "infinite" just refers to a single un-ending being or thing. With that, let me quote David Hilbert, one of the world's greatest mathematicians: ... the [actual] infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought--a remarkable harmony between being and thought.... This now famous example below can show us why an infinite "set" of things (like your infinite regress) is impossible: Imagine an actually infinite library of books that come in two colors: black and red. The books are placed on a shelf in an alternating pattern of black and red. It is obvious that there are an equal number of black books and red books. But if this library is actually infinite, the number of black books is equal to the number of all the books, i.e., the number of black books is equal to the number of red books plus the number of black books. While these counter-intuitive paradoxes might make sense at the level of mathematical theory, they do not make much sense in the real world of books and libraries. Or in our above example, you could take away 5 of the black books and what do you have left? An infinite number of books...so Infinity - 5 = Infinity. An infinite set of things like the books in the above example or an infinite regress of events, leads to all sorts of paradoxes and it just goes to show that as a mathematical concept, it MAY work but an actual infinite set of things does not exist in the "real world of stars and planets and rocks and men". Take another famous "Battle of Hastings" example: The Battle of Hastings took place in 1066. The Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776, 710 years after the Battle of Hastings. If the series of past events in the universe is actually infinite, we can say that the Battle of Hastings was preceded by an infinite number of events. We can say the same about the Declaration of Independence. In fact we can say that the set of past events before the Battle of Hastings is equal to the set of past events before the Declaration of Independence, because part of an actually infinite set is equal to the whole set, as noted above. But how can that be? 710 years separate these two events, i.e., 710 years were added to the set of past events before the Battle of Hastings to get to the Declaration of Independence. By definition, however, nothing can be added to an actual infinite. Hence the series of past events before the Battle of Hastings cannot be actually infinite. So an infinite regress is obviously impossible. And it's not "eternity" I have a problem with...indeed, unless you believe the universe sprang from nothing, you believe in an eternity of some sort. So a single, eternal God, is very different than an eternal series of finite causes and effects....where something was caused by something else which was caused by something else and which in turn was caused by something else that itself was caused by something different and that something different was caused by something else and on and on and on. Quote:
Last edited by Destroyer; Feb 1, 2007 at 11:17 am. | ||
|
| |
|
Feb 1, 2007, 03:35 pm
| #118 (permalink) (top) | |||
| Made of pure win. Posts: 3,809 | Destroyer... First off, you show up here inconsistantly. If you're interested in starting a thread, go ahead a start one, but don't demand I start a thread and then disapear for months. Quote:
Where is your evidence for the above? Where is your evidence that the rules don't apply / apply differently / etc? You cannot provide any so this is another 'what if' masquerading as evidence. I also liked how actual evidence (our own intelligence and the lesser intelligence of other life) is dismissable, but your hypothetical should be taken as gosepl. Fallacious through and through. Quote:
Your argument still hinges on the idea that natural explanations are "complex" while theistic explanations are "simple". You have it backwards. Natural selection / evolution is observable & understandable, though it may lead us to other areas of study, it doesn't raise more questions than it answers when compared with ID. ID doesn't tell us how organisms change, doesn't tell us who the desinger is / what it's motivation is / how design works / etc. The god hypothesis is fundamentally flawed in this way and trying to accuse other hypotheses of similar problems is useless. Look at Natural Selection again: not knowing the specific genetic blueprint of an organism isn't NEARLY as big a problem as the alternative, ID... whose explanation raises even bigger questions than it seeks to solve... like how it works at all. Whatever the origin of the universe was, the god hypothesis is woefully inadequate in describing it. Quote:
|
