pashley As both others and I have sayed the rules of logic will break down out side of the universe. Threr for your logic can’t hold true in a pre-universe state.There in no time logic or reason out side of this universe. The statment 0+0=0 in not relvent try chaos = something.The hunman brain is trying to tell you a way of explaning the universe in the rules that earth has forsed upon us. When trying to think about the space outside of the universe the only rule is chaos. Please offer an argument.
Don’t try to understand an infinite God with a finite mind. Well, you can try, but you won’t be successful.
Hmm, I’ll play along with this.
What do we know?
well, nothing really, so what can we reasonably assume?
- The Universe exists
- It’s been around as long as anyone can remember
- We don’t observe things happening for absolutely no reason
- We haven’t figured out why some things happen
- We have no idea how exactly the universe got here
- Science seems to indicate that it was created in a huge explosion many billions of years ago
- No one alive today actually witnessed this occur, and no one has offered an accepted explanation of why
None of these statements necessitate God, unless you are unwilling to accept that we might just happen to not know exactly why this event occurred. We have very little experience with these Big Bangs, so we really can’t tell why they happen. You say God. I shrug and figure the universe is here, it doesn’t matter how it came about.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith
Including God?
Including God?
Why does the fallacious logic we’re pointing out not sink in?
A couple of notes:
Actually, if the premises are false, the argument is not proven (as opposed to proven to be false):
False premise: The sun is in a carriage pulled by horses.
False premise: Horses always travel from east to west.
True conclusion: Therefore the sun appears to move from east to west.
The argument has failed to prove the conclusion, but the conclusion is still true.
Not entirely true. Some statements can be cast so that they’re not disprovable. A negative statment is often a marker for, but not the definition, of non-disprovability. The negative statment “I am not a woman” can be proven or disproven quite handily.
Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!
I don’t see how my comment was inappropiate. Pashley made the claim that he was being attacked because he believes in God. The fact that he’s a idiot is directly relevant to that claim. Is Pashley’s intelligence a verboten subject just because he might find the sdubject unpleasent? And just when did this “no insults in GD” rule appear?
Evererst:
You don’t understand our point. It’s not that we’re disputing the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that God was uncaused. It’s that that conclusion contradicts the initial premise. You can advance argument after argument about how God must be uncaused, but that doesn’t change the fact that the initial premise was that nothing with no exceptions is uncaused. Suppose I start a proof with the premise “All even numbers are composite” and from that I conclude, among other things, that two is prime. Someone comes along and mentions that my conclusion (two is prime) contradicts my premise (all even numbers are composite). Now, it’s certainly possible to prove that two is, in fact, prime. But what’s at issue is not simply whether two is prime. What’s at issue is whether the conclusion contradicts the premise. To prove that two is prime would be to completely miss the point.
Similarly, what’s at issue with the God “proof” is whether the conclusion contradicts the premise, not whether God is uncaused. If you want to use this “proof”, then you’d better show that the conclusion doesn’t contradict the premise. Simply proving that part of the conclusion is true doesn’t address the issue of whether that part contradicts the premise.
Yes, please.
Actually pashley jumped to this conclusion first when he said that God doesn’t have a cause. If you don’t like this idea, take it up with him, not me.
What did I say before? The burden of proof is on he who makes the positive statement. I have made no such statement. The burden of proof is NOT ON ME.
You’re making an inductive argument: “We’ve seen a bunch of things like this, so therefore everything must be like this.”
Very weak…not worth rebutting.
I don’t have a problem with the statement that ‘all things have a cause’ per se (well, I do, but it’s off the subject). What I don’t like is the logical leap (or maybe logical catapult…logical teleport?) that there must be something which was uncaused. It doesn’t follow. It’s circular reasoning.
You say that all things which exists have a cause. It is later asserted that God exists. By your first statement, God must therefore necessarily have been caused by something else. Since that must be the case, God can not be the “prime cause.”
Thanks for the clarifications. It’s been a while since I dusted off my logic memory banks.
I seem to recall though, that there is some kind of negative statement which can’t be proven at all. Going back to Predicate Calculus…isn’t it true that negatively stated universal predicates can’t be proven true? (or have I misstated that also?)
[Moderator Hat ON]
The rule has always been: no direct personal insults in GD. David warned someone for calling C#3 an idiot waaaaay back in June (I ran across that while I was archiving stuff. I believe GD was only established as a forum in June, but that was before my time so I could be wrong). You can attack Pashley’s posts and statements, but if you want to call him an idiot, please do so in the Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Well Gad, you don’t want to see the logic that there must be an uncaused causer. You can’t understand it, even though logically, it IS valid. That’s your problem.
At least one person, Everest, can see the truth, the logic. All is not lost.
If the Invisible Pink Unicorn is invisible, how do we know it is pink?
Faith, of course, Otto.
There’s the crux, then. It is not logical, it is not logically valid. That has been shown.
However, Patrick believes it, and he’s not budging. Some agree with him, most do not (even the theists among us). So be it. Let it go. He obviously doesn’t want to listen.
-andros-
**
Not according to your own post that started it all! You said exactly:
“Whatever” either includes everything, of which God has to be a part of.
— OR —
“Whatever” does not include God, in which case it doesn’t have to include anything else.
Logic dictates that you cannot make claims which contradict themselves. Pleasze tell me - do not say, “I already said it,” answer this question simply - How do you account for the obvious contradiction above?
**
I asked you a very simple question. If you cannot answer it, then I would say that it’s your silly idea’s problem.
How convenient for you. ::cough Sock puppet:: That said, even if everyone agreed with you, it wouldn’t make it right, necessarily. So, start off slow - explain the above as simply as you can.
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One week, four days, 16 hours, 50 minutes and 4 seconds.
468 cigarettes not smoked, saving $58.51.
Life saved: 1 day, 15 hours, 0 minutes.
Ok, Satan, you’re right! I admit it! How silly of me to have you think logic might enter into all this!
Yeah, I didn’t think you could answer a simple question, huh.
Well, it’s to be expected. After all, if you can’t get the answer verbatum from either the Bible itself or a website you plageurize (I see you conveniently slipped out on that thread after your C&P job), you don’t hav the answer.
That is not logic, P. That is called “mindless drone.”
Funny, the Bible says in it that people will come to you with questions, and you need to be ready with the answers," yet you couldn’t answer my simple query above.
It seems that you need to read up, not only on science, American history and logic, but your own faith as well…
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One week, four days, 17 hours, 4 minutes and 23 seconds.
468 cigarettes not smoked, saving $58.56.
Life saved: 1 day, 15 hours, 0 minutes.
Here’s another simple question.
Even IF we were to assume your logic was unflawed (I know, not possible, but humor me), where in it does it say anywhere that God is the God of the Bible?
Maybe it was a God who left this place after making it (and we all should be Deists). Maybe the Koran is right and God is Allah of Islam. Maybe the Jews are right and Jesus was just a rabbai, not the messiah.
Even if we were to assume that your logic was right, it says nothing as to who God is, and why what you think He is is indeed accurate.
Personally, I don’t need fake-ass logic games to prove God. I just listen to Him. And I read all of the texts that He has inspired that I can, all of the prophets, and the skeptics as well.
Fact is, through this, I know a lot more about God that you ever will, because you can only come up with little false-logic problems which don’t even prove your God is indeed God even if they weren’t full of shit!
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One week, four days, 17 hours, 17 minutes and 5 seconds.
468 cigarettes not smoked, saving $58.60.
Life saved: 1 day, 15 hours, 0 minutes.
I’m waiting, too, pashley, for you to answer Satan’s question above–one which has been posed in many forms, by many people (including me) in this thread. To reiterate:
Satan quoted you saying
and then remarked that
We’re waiting.
Sigh.
Pashley, Pashley, Pashley. Probably 90 posts ago I posted my father’s argument that while the universe had to have a cause, the cause was not necessarily God. (At least not the God I perceive to be.)
If there is a God (and I happen to believe there is) then God must be beyond our powers of understanding. Trying to explain God, or even prove God, is pointless. There is nothing to prove. There simply “is.”
If there is no God, well, the universe still exists. Maybe it always did (after all, if you can argue that God is eternal, someone else can argue that the universe is.) Maybe the universe we exist in is the spoor from another universe which was destroyed. Maybe a lot of things.
You can not use physics to prove metaphysics and you can not prove belief through reason. To do so only cheapens the value of both.
I understand all the words, they just don’t make sense together like that.
Pashley:
Please consider the following:
Although the example of the electron/anti-election pair contradicts this premise (and premises for an argument should be widely accepted if not true), assume that this premise is true. It has been expressed that if god is, then god must have had a cause. Either all things have a cause, including god, or causality is not implicit in existence, thereby rejecting your premise #1.
Can energy, space and time exist in singularly or in any combination which excludes one of the three? Is time not a constituent of existence? If you agree, then the concept of beginning, which implies the existence of time before and after the beginning to have relevance, has no meaning. Perhaps you disagree with this argument because it is based on a priori synthetic knowledge. As pointed out by Bertrand Russell, Kant’s proof of a priori synthetic knowledge utilizes a priori synthetic knowledge as premises; therefore, the proof is invalid. Your premise #2 is also asserted as a priori synthetic knowledge. You must either submit a proof for the existence of a priori synthetic knowledge, which I humbly believe to be impossible, or you must refine your concept of beginning. Regardless, your second premise is also rejected.
Once again, assuming this statement to be true and that the conclusion follows from the premises, thereby making your argument logically valid (which it is not), how is it necessary that the cause be god? Are there no other possibilities?
Please see above. I await your rebuttal or retraction of the argument.