- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 20 2010,19:33) So, no theory of creation. No explanation for how humans arise from Imaginary Friends breathing into dirt. No explanation for why the Judeo-christian book of spells claims that you can have the earth before light exists.
Oh, I have plenty of ideas and theories here. But I need to explain to you that you need a better methodology.The evidence we all have is that there is life and design in the universe. That alone narrows down the possibilities to 3 options.
God, something, nothing.
No need to get any more complicated than that as those 3 options cover all bases.
Now once you decide which one it is, then you can further narrow the search with theories etc.Until you actually back one of these horses, you are officially not in the race, and therefore not able to argue any theory because you have no basis.
So arguing about finer detail on one of those options in order to debunk it is fruitless, pointless, and stupid. You need to debunk the bigger idea, and once you have done that, you can debunk all that is framed in that bigger idea.
You are going about this the wrong way because we have to be on the same page with believing in a God before we can debate the finer issues there.
Because we are on different pages, our debate is with the bigger ideas. Do you agree that this is a better method?
Get it now?
t8
Quote Oh, I have plenty of ideas and theories here. But I need to explain to you that you need a better methodology.
A better methodology for what? Asking questions?Quote The evidence we all have is that there is life and design in the universe. That alone narrows down the possibilities to 3 options. God, something, nothing.
No need to get any more complicated than that as those 3 options cover all bases.
Now once you decide which one it is, then you can further narrow the search with theories etc.Until you actually back one of these horses, you are officially not in the race, and therefore not able to argue any theory because you have no basis.
So arguing about finer detail on one of those options in order to debunk it is fruitless, pointless, and stupid. You need to debunk the bigger idea, and once you have done that, you can debunk all that is framed in that bigger idea.
You are going about this the wrong way because we have to be on the same page with believing in a God before we can debate the finer issues there.
Because we are on different pages, our debate is with the bigger ideas. Do you agree that this is a better method?
No. you are just specially pleading now. That is a logical fallacy too.You have asserted there is evidence of design in the universe but you have not presented it to us, and specifically you have not explained how it is unambiguous evidence for the existence or deeds of your Imaginary Friend as against anyone else’s. There are some very good arguments that if we were to accept the assumption of a designer despite the complete lack of evidence for one, the evidence is not consistent with it being the Judeo-christian god.
You also commit the fallacy of false middle by defining the options to the exclusion of other possibilities. You have not listed the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bhna) as a possible creator of the universe, or a committee of several designing gods, or design of the universe retrospectively by advanced beings in the future who have been able to synthesise their own past in order that they can exist. If we followed your previous assertion that it was 33% for each of your options, when we include all the different gods that cannot reasonably come under the joke claim of “all other gods are others’ descriptions of our god” (even you have two gods, one from each testament!) the the chance of it being your god drops to at best 1 in 1,000 and more likely one tenth of that value. Of course there are other reasons to drastically reduce that probability a lot further.
Why do we HAVE to have preexisting religious beliefs before you can mount a convincing case for your claims? I have specifically asked you to assume nothing about gods for my explanation to work. For example, my explanation is consistent with the existence of gods that are either incompetents meddling around the edges, or gods that are undetectable and do absolutely nothing at all, as well as no gods.
Now you are saying we have to accept your logical fallacy of special pleading before you can give us your explanation!
Stop wasting our time. If you cannot put up an explanation to the highest level, making the fewest special demands on credulity, then why should you be given the time of day by anyone?
Stuart
what if the same “nothing” that created God also created the universe?
If one says that the universe needs a cause, as does everything, then shouldn't God need a cause? If the logic is to remain consistent, shouldn't that be true?
The answer is of course: “No, God is special. He doesn't need a cause.”
Well, one could equally argue that the universe is special. (How many universes are there?)And just as it is said that God always has existed without beginning, for all we know the universe has gone through an infinite number of cycles, expanding and collapsing, without beginning.
Then we say: “Well that's impossible. Everything needs a beginning, a cause.”
Yet, God doesn't. So, can we really say everything has a beginning and needs a cause?
Quote (david @ Oct. 21 2010,18:26) what if the same “nothing” that created God also created the universe? If one says that the universe needs a cause, as does everything, then shouldn't God need a cause? If the logic is to remain consistent, shouldn't that be true?
The answer is of course: “No, God is special. He doesn't need a cause.”
Well, one could equally argue that the universe is special. (How many universes are there?)And just as it is said that God always has existed without beginning, for all we know the universe has gone through an infinite number of cycles, expanding and collapsing, without beginning.
Then we say: “Well that's impossible. Everything needs a beginning, a cause.”
Yet, God doesn't. So, can we really say everything has a beginning and needs a cause?
Well put.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 21 2010,19:17) Quote (david @ Oct. 21 2010,18:26) what if the same “nothing” that created God also created the universe? If one says that the universe needs a cause, as does everything, then shouldn't God need a cause? If the logic is to remain consistent, shouldn't that be true?
The answer is of course: “No, God is special. He doesn't need a cause.”
Well, one could equally argue that the universe is special. (How many universes are there?)And just as it is said that God always has existed without beginning, for all we know the universe has gone through an infinite number of cycles, expanding and collapsing, without beginning.
Then we say: “Well that's impossible. Everything needs a beginning, a cause.”
Yet, God doesn't. So, can we really say everything has a beginning and needs a cause?
Well put.Stuart
Cause doesn't need a cause, Be-cause, understand?God doesn't need a God, Be-God, understand
GOD IS THE BE-CAUSE
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 21 2010,18:02) t8 You have asserted there is evidence of design in the universe but you have not presented it to us, and specifically you have not explained how it is unambiguous evidence for the existence or deeds of your Imaginary Friend as against anyone else’s.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,I have provided evidence for God's existence! (Located Here)
Now let me explain for you the PROOF of Intelligent Design.Have you ever heard of “a fractal”; this is proof of design!
The atom is depicted as a solar system; and a galaxy
better depicts many electrons in the atoms orbit.
Try to discount God's Intelligent design now!Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
