I'm curious, what's your logical answer for "how did the universe originate?" And please, feel free to say "my god did it," because as everyone knows, that theory is completely air tight.Originally Posted by stuntpickle
I'm curious, what's your logical answer for "how did the universe originate?" And please, feel free to say "my god did it," because as everyone knows, that theory is completely air tight.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
The difference, Serena, is that one of us has actually taken coursework in logic. In any logic course, you will learn that presmises that cast doubt on themselves are not good.
Look, you're completely missing the point. Logic is a mode of discourse that occurs only once any number of things have been taken for granted. Among these are that statements have meaning and true statements are possible. If you assert that meaning is entirely subjective or that truth is illusory, you impeach the very mechanisms of the discussion.
Yeah because everyone knows that hack Aristotle was just some fundamentalist Christian trying to crash the atheist party.
So your "logic" is that Aristotle thought it was true, so it is? Aristotle, like most people of his time, also thought that the earth was flat and that all matter was composed of earth, wind, water and fire. Do you agree with him there, too?
I really wish that you would shut up about your background in "logic." All you're really accomplishing is making yourself look like a douche, and preventing anyone from even considering agreeing with you out of spite.
Last edited by JuniperWoolf; 11-14-2011 at 04:32 AM.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
See, this is what modern atheists do: they demosntrate their fundamental incpacity for rational discussion and end by calling a theist a name.
Let me set you straight on your goofy ideas about Aristotle. First, it doesn't matter if he thought the world was flat; that's not an idea anyone cares about. Newton thought he could transmute lead into gold; that doesn't mean we gave up on calculus or Newtonian physics. YOU just don't know how philosophy works if you think antique philosophy is entirely useless. The disgreements in philosophy now are the same as the disagreements then. Aristotle has never gone entirely out of style. Roger Penrose, one of the foremost mathematicians alive, is a Platonist, which, in case you can't figure that out, means he is largely concerned with the ideas of Plato, who also thought the world was flat. Aristotle's prime mover argument is not only a foundational idea in western culture, but still in use today. The latest iteration is Craig's Kalam argument.
Perhaps when you can demostrate more than a tendency toward non sequiturs, we could actually discuss the issue, which, if I recall, is the writing of CS Lewis.
Edit: Too late; I already caught the snapshot of you calling me a name. Hmmmm, I wonder if you'll get an infraction.
Last edited by stuntpickle; 11-14-2011 at 04:39 AM.
Who said I was an atheist? You know stuntpickle, I don't appreciate it when you call me names.
You know what? I don't care about Aristotle. You're trying to blow off my question, so I'll ask it again: hey stuntpickle, how did the universe originate?
I don't care. What do YOU, STUNTPICKE, what do YOU think? How did the universe originate, and why do you think so?
You've used the phrase "non sequitur" a few times now, and it makes me think that you don't understand the definition:
non se·qui·tur
noun
a statement containing an illogical conclusion.
The only conclusion that I've come to so far is that you sound like a douche, and I don't think that anyone would fail to see the logic in that.
It's a small risk in this case, because I technically didn't "call you" anything. I said that you SOUND like a douche. The way that you are speaking to people on this forum is in a douchey manner. I could have said that you sound "arrogant," but that's not as funny and it also lacks style.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
Perhaps you know what a dictionary says a non sequitur is, but I doubt you understand what it means, or you would be capable of determining how what you said qualifies. Essentially, a nonsequitur does not follow from what comes before it. When you conclude from my post that my "logic is that Aristotle thought it was true, so it is," you arrive at a nonsequitur.
Look, if you can't understand how my mention of Aristotle's prime mover and Craig's Kalam argument answer your question, then I can't help you.
You could help me if you answer my question. You've bashed the other side's theories, so it's only fair if you give them yours to consider. Do you want me to ask it again?
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
Because you are so helpless as to be incapable of using Google, I will repeat the simplied version of Craig's Kalam argument.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
A cause? No kidding. Like, for example, the big bang? Or do you have another cause in mind? Which cause might that be, stuntpickle?
Jesus, it's like pulling teeth.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
The Big Bang describes the creation without positing a cause. YOU people are so overconfident it's funny. Are you in elementary school?
Who are "YOU people?"
Why can't you just talk without pussy-footing around, calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot or rambling out a lecture of dry references to people who have been dead for thousands of years? Your aversion to giving a straight answer reeks of cowardice and uncertainty. Do you seriously think that you can crap all over everyone else's theories about something that we know dick-all about without anyone asking what your own thoughts are? Just admit it: you believe that the universe was created by a humanoid god, and that's AT LEAST as much of a random stab-in-the-dark idea as any that has ever been proposed. Your opinion isn't better than anyone else's on this topic (since we have practically no information on it) despite your extensive "logic" background.
And if you do believe that a god created the universe, then there is a score of other questions that you can't answer, the most obvious being: where did that god come from?
Last edited by JuniperWoolf; 11-14-2011 at 05:48 AM.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
See, you're just so wrong that you even lack the capacity to discern your wrongness. I've called no one an idiot; I asked you (seriously) if you were in elementary school, simply because you demostrate that level of understanding about the Big Bang. You just keep posting piles of garbage that I have to sift through and explain to you how they're piles of garbage.
First of all, the prime mover is, by definition the unmoved mover and therefore does not have to be explained in the same manner as the universe. Craig's first premise uses the accurate phrase "begins to exist," and God is generally considered to be extra-temporal. Your "who designed the designer" argument was only proposed recently by Richard Dawkins who was consequently ridiculed, by other atheists to boot, for having no clue what he was talking about.
The case for theism is cumulative: the simplified Kalam argument doesn't explicity argue for "God." Of course, there are many other arguments that do: the ontological argument, for instance. Here is Plantiga's modal version:
1.A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2.A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3.It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness.
4.Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5.Therefore (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6.Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
But this is all beside the point because you've thoroughly demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding logic this advanced. You can't even tell when you're uttering non sequiturs or how the Big Bang is not positing a cause for the entire universe. But you don't really care; all you care about is talking trash and constantly switching the goal posts because you can't defend any of the lame assertions you make, so we are destined to spin our wheels for ever while you try to make a quick study of relevant wikipedia articles.
Last edited by stuntpickle; 11-14-2011 at 06:07 AM.
And you don't agree that you sound like a complete condescending douche?
Uh, no it wasn't. I asked my mom where god comes from when I was five. Most CHILDREN do. After all, if something exists then it must have a cause, right? So what's the cause of god? Did it "spontaneously create itself?" If so, then how is that any better than your estimation of the atheists' explination for the origin of the universe?
Excuse me and my inferior brain, but what the hell does this have to do with anything and how does it prove that the being of "maximal excellence" exists? This could be paraphrased as "a supreme being is one that is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent in every possible world." Alright. Let's follow that thread.
I think you must have skipped some steps. How was this concusion reached? So far, I've heard a definition of what a god is, and then I've heard an assertion that it exists. Where's the "logic?"
That's a restatement of #3, except with the uber convincing phrase "possibly it is necessarily true" tagged onto it.
Another restatement of point #3.
Yet another re-statement of point #3.
Are you serious? How was this supposed to convince anyone of anything?
Haha, yeah. I'm having a real doozy of a time navigating this intricate labyrinth of intellect and supreme reason.
Well, at least in this entire conversation you were right about one thing.
Mixed metaphor alert.
So far the only assertion that I've made is that you sound like a douche, and I think that I've sufficiently proven that. You don't know what I believe beyond that, and actually, what I believe isn't all that important - and neither, by the way, is what you believe, so stop pretending that it is. You don't have the answers to the secrets of the universe, so keep your religion to yourself and stop acting superior.
Last edited by JuniperWoolf; 11-14-2011 at 06:47 AM.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
Well if I am initially questioning the objective existence of absolute truth, obviously the traditional use of logic is being questioned as well, so the whole concept will naturally cancel itself out as a piece of truth. But you can still make seeming observations or conjectures which is still up for falsifying, a lot of philosophy begins this way. Maybe you can pass your brilliant coursework in logic, especially concerning God's cause for the universe, over to the mystified realms of science since you apparently have all the answers.
~
This thread is now closed.
A quick glance at the last couple of posts will, I am sure, inform everyone why.
I would like remind everyone, once again, that disrespect towards others and their beliefs
-regardless of the points you are trying to make -
will not be tolerated on this Forum.
~
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
Posting Permissions
