- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 19 2010,20:38) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 19 2010,20:32) You have failed to spot the flaw in this. I won because you are now convinced of my argument.
Yes you won Stu. There is a creator.
You have made progress.Now try and tackle the larger universe. Try and think logically as to how it could have happened. Remember this, nothing can do nothing. And bits of everything ordering themselves into living creatures, planets, suns, and galaxies, is just silly.
If you need a hand just post here. Feel free to rant and get it all off your chest when you get frustrated. It is OK. I will listen. Just try.
“Nothing can do nothing” is a sophisticated logical fallacy. I think it is equivocation by the fallacy of misplaced concretion.“Is just silly” is the fallacy of special pleading.
Keep'em coming t8. Your range of fallacious arguments is ever-broadening.
Should we start a new thread to celebrate your achievements in deductive uselessness?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 19 2010,20:48) “Nothing can do nothing” is a sophisticated logical fallacy. I think it is equivocation by the fallacy of misplaced concretion.
Are you defending that idea that nothing can do something by using a few big words in the hope that you come across as intelligent?Excuse me while I laugh.
Ha ha!
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 19 2010,20:50) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 19 2010,20:48) “Nothing can do nothing” is a sophisticated logical fallacy. I think it is equivocation by the fallacy of misplaced concretion.
Are you defending that idea that nothing can do something by using a few big words in the hope that you come across as intelligent?Excuse me while I laugh.
Ha ha!
I am analysing the absurdity of your statement. Do you think “nothing” can be criticised as both a thing that can achieve outcomes, and a state in which no kind of anything exists, together in the same sentence? That is what you wrote, and it is two illogical statements in one.Does your god demand that you break the rules of logical argument for its sake? Do you just not respect logical structures? Just as well one of us can. Shame the other cannot recognise the defeat that represents. That is common in creationists and other Sky Friend believers.
Stuart
Stu, you believe in nothing. And nothing acted on that nothing, and created everything. Then these bits of everything self-organised into dinosaurs, galaxies, suns, planets, and bananas. That is your belief plain and simple. Please tell me which part of this is not correct and I will show you how you differ with Atheism.
BTW, this post posted itself. It didn't need a conscience of any kind to think it up and post it. No the letters just came out this way and it just happened to coincide with the English language and make a statement.
That last paragraph is not as ridiculous as believing that nothing is the cause of everything.
Keep the free entertainment going. Looking forward to the next laugh. And remember, laughter is good for the soul.
BTW Stu. You don't need to quote a post if you are replying to the last post. It actually makes the conversation harder to follow when people quote all the time.
t8,
Unless you like arguing with nothing, the adage applies all to obviously, 'No thing can come from nothing', 'No sense can come from nonesense'…and Stu is full of nothing.His posts suggests he has seen the truth but is fighting against the tide of evidence, 'a King Kanoote, trying to hold back the tide' believing himself to be as a God.
How many times should one ask Stuart, 'Why?'
Stu, can't, it appears, understand the question…no, Stu does understand but reality of an unability to prepare and expose an answer means he has to 'pretend' he doesn't understand.
Every Scientist, presented with a situation, asks, 'Why?'.
It is not enough to be content with the 'How', but most of Science does exactly that: remain at the 'How'.
I repeat:: 'Science is not wrong'. Science is true…science, however, is only uncovering what God has created and in some ways, the 'how' also, but Science cannot explain the 'Why', and nor can the Scientists…because the 'Why' is not Science. The 'Why' is beyond Science, it is 'Spiritual'.
Stuart, why?
He would say that WHY is irrelevant which is what I did when I myself was in darkness. I was an Atheist and I thought that WHY was irrelevant. Why ask WHY? Although that is a WHY question.
I gave Stu the analogy of a cake. Science can explain that it contains flour, baking powder, egg, and sugar, and it was heated for 45 minutes at a certain temperature. But science doesn't ask “who baked the cake”. In fact they get annoyed at such questions and wish to be ignorant of WHO and WHY which is silly because you cannot see the big picture from one discipline.
It is up to every individual to ask WHY and WHO, and science can concentrate on HOW. As you say, it is not the field of science to work out such things, so is it any reason when science is silent on this, that people take that as science says there is no God. Yet, some of the greatest scientists in the world believed in God, but that had probably more to do with a personal search than a lab experiment.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 20 2010,08:21) Stu, you believe in nothing. And nothing acted on that nothing, and created everything. Then these bits of everything self-organised into dinosaurs, galaxies, suns, planets, and bananas. That is your belief plain and simple. Please tell me which part of this is not correct and I will show you how you differ with Atheism. BTW, this post posted itself. It didn't need a conscience of any kind to think it up and post it. No the letters just came out this way and it just happened to coincide with the English language and make a statement.
That last paragraph is not as ridiculous as believing that nothing is the cause of everything.
Keep the free entertainment going. Looking forward to the next laugh. And remember, laughter is good for the soul.
Your suggestion that atheism requires belief in self-organisation, or whatever you are on about, is the logical fallacy of strawman. Atheism is only the belief that there are no gods.What is your point regarding your post? Who was suggesting there was no conscience behind it? Not me. That would be another strawman if that is your intent.
Your “nothing is the cause of everything” statement is both a strawman fallacy and a repeat of the fallacy of misplaced concretion.
Do you post anything that is logically valid these days t8?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 19 2010,21:02) … Do you think “nothing” can be criticised as both a thing that can achieve outcomes…
Stuart
Hi Stuart,I believe you are making progress!
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Oct. 20 2010,19:15) Your analogy commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. Stuart
Nothing wrong with begging a question if it needs to be asked.e.g., if you don't ask the question “is it safe”, then you might take unnecessary risks.
Stu, you can't hide behind technicalities. That is what people do when they have something to hide. Trying to win on a technicality is not a win for the truth.
This site is about the truth and not really about the people here.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand:
Stu, sounds like you are defending the notion that everything came from nothing or at least entertaining that possibility.Please explain how this works. No religious platitude please.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2010,09:39) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 20 2010,19:15) Your analogy commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. Stuart
Nothing wrong with begging a question if it needs to be asked.e.g., if you don't ask the question “is it safe”, then you might take unnecessary risks.
Stu, you can't hide behind technicalities. That is what people do when they have something to hide. Trying to win on a technicality is not a win for the truth.
This site is about the truth and not really about the people here.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand:
Stu, sounds like you are defending the notion that everything came from nothing or at least entertaining that possibility.Please explain how this works. No religious platitude please.
Already have explained it. here (seventh post down) for example.Once you have read that, get back to us once you have learned what the expression “begging the question” actually means.
Stuart
OK, this explanation from Prophet Hawking is what you believe. Will comment when I am in a better space.
Quote THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least ten-to-the-eightieth particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is that relativity and quantum mechanics allow matter to be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. And where did the energy come from to create this matter? The answer is that it was borrowed from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which ex actly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period the universe borrowed heavily from its grav itational energy to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Keynesian economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy will not have to be paid until the end of the universe.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 21 2010,18:18) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2010,09:39) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 20 2010,19:15) Your analogy commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. Stuart
Nothing wrong with begging a question if it needs to be asked.e.g., if you don't ask the question “is it safe”, then you might take unnecessary risks.
Stu, you can't hide behind technicalities. That is what people do when they have something to hide. Trying to win on a technicality is not a win for the truth.
This site is about the truth and not really about the people here.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand:
Stu, sounds like you are defending the notion that everything came from nothing or at least entertaining that possibility.Please explain how this works. No religious platitude please.
Already have explained it. here (seventh post down) for example.Once you have read that, get back to us once you have learned what the expression “begging the question” actually means.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,It sounds like universe economics,
was God the banker in this investment scheme?Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 23 2010,20:56) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 21 2010,18:18) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2010,09:39) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 20 2010,19:15) Your analogy commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. Stuart
Nothing wrong with begging a question if it needs to be asked.e.g., if you don't ask the question “is it safe”, then you might take unnecessary risks.
Stu, you can't hide behind technicalities. That is what people do when they have something to hide. Trying to win on a technicality is not a win for the truth.
This site is about the truth and not really about the people here.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand:
Stu, sounds like you are defending the notion that everything came from nothing or at least entertaining that possibility.Please explain how this works. No religious platitude please.
Already have explained it. here (seventh post down) for example.Once you have read that, get back to us once you have learned what the expression “begging the question” actually means.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,It sounds like universe economics,
was God the banker in this investment scheme?
Yes I reckon it is probably Jupiter that is the god responsible for accounting for the borrowing of matter from the gravitational expansion of space-time. Maybe his thunderbolts are thrown in frustration when he discovers a discrepancy in the balance sheet.Stuart
OK, so gravity is eternal and can exert itself on nothing and walla, a universe, banana, and a conscious race of humans.
This pretty much sums up this belief and as you can see, it too is a religious explanation.
We can call it the Gravity God religion. Gravity is God. Gravity came up with a universe full of patterns and fractal design, it invented consciousness, and it did all this while possessing the intelligence of a shoe lace.
I put this religion right up there with the Tooth Fairy. BTW, I have never received any money for a lost tooth, in case you decided to back that one too.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 30 2010,08:03) OK, so gravity is eternal and can exert itself on nothing and walla, a universe, banana, and a conscious race of humans. This pretty much sums up this belief and as you can see, it too is a religious explanation.
We can call it the Gravity God religion. Gravity is God. Gravity came up with a universe full of patterns and fractal design, it invented consciousness, and it did all this while possessing the intelligence of a shoe lace.
I put this religion right up there with the Tooth Fairy. BTW, I have never received any money for a lost tooth, in case you decided to back that one too.
You can make up any fantasy story you want regarding how the universe works, although to be fair to the early Iron Age inventors of your religion it was not you who wrote that fantasy originally.Just as you make ill-fitting analogies in an attempt to square your mythology with reality, you are trying to redefine commonly understood terms in the usual dishonest christian apologist way.
I do not see gravity as anything more than an fundamental and interesting characteristic property of space-time that both produces and affects matter and energy.
You can smear undefined religious concepts like eternity and god all over it if you want, but that effort at mindless intellectual vandalism does not distort the original beauty of the view for me because it is pretty easy to see through it.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,10:41) I do not see gravity as anything more than an fundamental and interesting characteristic property of space-time that both produces and affects matter and energy.
Was gravity the first or did it come from something else?
Is it eternal?
Or did it all come from nothing.We want to know about your unique faith.
Or are you just clueless and hurl abuse at any explanation that touches on the eternal or the source?Please answer the questions.
I don't know is considered an answer.Quote (t8 @ Oct. 31 2010,12:00) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,10:41) I do not see gravity as anything more than an fundamental and interesting characteristic property of space-time that both produces and affects matter and energy.
Was gravity the first or did it come from something else?
Is it eternal?
Or did it all come from nothing.We want to know about your unique faith.
Or are you just clueless and hurl abuse at any explanation that touches on the eternal or the source?Please answer the questions.
I don't know is considered an answer.
If you can tell me what “eternal” actually means, and how it relates to space-time, and do the same for your continually mindless use of the word “nothing”, then perhaps there is something to discuss.Aside from your false analogies, you are just indulging in the great religious exercise of naming things without explaining anything. The things you name are not defined, and you don't bother with the fundamental question of showing that it would be reasonable to suppose the named things actually have any reality to them.
Meantime, real science has not only come up with names, but mechanisms and mathematical models that can be used to make predictions that turn out to be confirmed later, as is the case with the current models of cosmology that I have outlined, and by now you are mocking yourself without good reason.
Have you actually responded to the guts of the explanation provided by Hawking, of are you just going to carry on with the fallacy of playing the abstract and concrete senses of “nothing” against one another as if that has some meaning? Why should anyone have any respect for that?
Do you have a divine mechanism for cosmological origins, or are you only capable of platitude?
It is a shame in your case actually, because while others appear clueless and disinterested in the universe aside from the petty business of trying to avoid being fried by their Imaginary Friend, you actually do have a great interest in what we find billions of light years away. The people who made the telescopes through which we can see all that wonder are the same ones who have, as objectively as they can, determined where all that stuff came from. And yet you dismiss that aspect of it. Why do you not also dismiss the pictures from the telescopes as the work of atheist artists determined to destroy religious beliefs? It was pictures from a telescope that confirmed the same explanation for the cosmos that you appear to reject. Actually why do you reject it?
Does your god require you to be selective like that? What kind of a divine though-police state does it run?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
