The author “disproves” possibility number one and two, deciding we have no choice but to accept #3.
Now, what is this guy on about when he “disproves” point number 2? He talks a lot about infinity and how it is, in reality, impossible, but then goes on to use inifnity as an example to disprove point 2, and I simply could not follow his line of reasoning.
I independently concluded that his reasoning for point 1 is flawed, because in his example, he basically stands at the end of an infinite line of dominoes. Of course, you can’t stand at the end of something that is infinite. Or did I read it wrong?
Basically what I am asking is, why did this guy actually not prove the existence of a Creator, so that I can use it as ammunition for my Muslim friends who gave me the article.
That was exceedingly rude, Mr. Bix. There is no evidence whatsoever that the OP is anything but genuine, not to mention perfectly polite. Please don’t do that again.
Mr Bix, we take accusations of troll-ery very serious here, as we do actual trolling. The point of Great Debates is to start, well, a debate.
(Welcome to the SDMB, by the way. I hope you like it here.)
With regards to the OP:
I haven’t read all that article, but there is a fundamental flaw in his approach. He is saying that there are a couple natural possibilities and one supernatural possibility. By disproving those two natural possibilities, he hopes to prove the supernatural one by default.
The problem is that it’s a false trichotomy. That is, the three options given do not make up all possibilities.
For example, there is still the possibility that matter relies on some natural force and not a Creator. There is also the possibility that it relies on Faries, or highly intelligent mice, instead of a Creator. There are an infinite number of supernatural (and natural, for that matter) possibilities - he cannot hope to disprove all but the one he likes.
In order to prove his conclusion, he must actually prove that conclusion - it is impossible for him to disprove every alternative possibility.
Yeah, but remember, this guy is merely trying to prove the existence of a Creator, he’s not trying to (initially) prove what form it might take, fairy or otherwise.
Paper needs molecules. Molecules need atoms. Atoms need quarks and stuff. Quarks and stuff need a Creator. Fine. So where did the Creator come from? It seems He/It/She/They/Other Pronoun needs something, right? For me it always comes down to what caused the First Cause, and nobody has really ever explained that to my satisfaction (and I honestly wish that somebody somewhere could and would). Anyway, if the OP’s quote is representative of Muslim philosophy, it seems the imams would hate to see me as a student as much as the priests and nuns did.
BTW, why do you want to prove your Muslim friend wrong?
Well I would rather prove them right, perhaps I should have used better wording. I am pretty sure, however, that the intelligent minds on this board will identify the major flaws in this guy’s ‘proof’.
Moderator’s Note:Mr. Bix, as has already been pointed out, you should not make accusations of “trolling” in the middle of a thread like that. If there is a serious case to be made for such an accusation–which in this case there clearly is not–it should be made in an e-mail to a Moderator, or using the “Report this post to a moderator” link.
What I got from scimming the article (very quickly, I admit) was something like this: God is bigger than the Universe. God is beyond our comprehension. There are some other possibilities for existance but they don’t for one reason or another make sense. Which leaves only the possibility of my God to explain things.
The author never did say where God came from; he just said that God was necessary for existence because all the other theories he mentioned were, for one reason or another, wrong. Giving a list of theories and then trying to disprove all but one of them doesn’t make the last theory a fact.
Which isn’t to say that there isn’t a God, or even a Muslim God. I personally feel that there is some Higher Power and I hope I’m right. But the article, imo, doesn’t help prove His existence.
De-fault! De-fault! Two sweetest words in the English language.
Honestly, though. I can’t understand how anyone could solve the “problem” of the creation of the universe by invoking a god that is infinitely more complex than the universe- yet exists him/herself without the need of a creator.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by rjung *
**
“Make sense” according to who?*
Sorry. The author doesn’t seem to think the other possibilities he mentions (such as the quantum fluctuation thing) are correct. That whole paragraph of mine that you quoted is about what it seems to me that the author of the article seems to think. Sloppy wording on my part.
It’s bad enough trying to have this type of discussion with Christians, who use vague and ambiguous terms without bothering to define what they mean. Each Christian has a slightly different meaning associated with the words, which means that even if you’ve had the discussion before with another Christian, you can’t argue based on what the previous Christian meant by the terms, because the current one will constantly say “no, that’s not what I mean” without ever explaining what they mean. It’s like a cold virus that keeps mutating enough that arguing against it requires starting from step one. Seeing as how that’s how it is within a religion, trying to argue against it across religions must be even worse. These sort of people would recognize modus ponens if it hit them between the eyes. Simply saying “I believe A, and I also believe B” doesn’t not someone how mean that B logically follows from A.
"These sort of people wouldn’t recognize modus ponens if it hit them between the eyes. Simply saying “I believe A, and I also believe B” doesn’t somehow mean that B logically follows from A.
I read through about a third of this ‘proof’ before giving up on it. The author has some serious misconceptions to get past. Just to start, of the the three possible explanations he posits, the first two aren’t even mutually exclusive. There’s far more wrong with it but I’m not gonna waste the time thinking further about it.
Besides, I expect that within a few days, somebody will post a complete evisceration of it somewhere.
The “natural force” possibility is indistinguishable from the eternal matter possibility. And, as Beastal has pointed out, the “intelligent mice” are indistinguishable from the general arbitrary creator that Bismillahir Rahman nir Raheem posits.
His main point is that, because time is one of the coordinates of any particle in four dimensional space {x, y, z, t}, a particle without a time coordinate is undefined. And, in general, any expression wherein time is zero (eternity is the absence of time) yields either an undefined solution, a zero solution, or a solution that is an identity (i.e., equal to the expression). Consider the following examples where t is zero time, and x is any arbitrary expression:
x/t — solution is undefined xt*** — solution is zero x+t (or x-t) — solution is an identity
You’re certainly right, FriendRob. His point about the “missing” days is incorrect, and he has never studied math. But I’m sure you’ve studied logic, and although he has presented his argument fallaciously, you cannot then conclude that his conclusion is false. Were you to do so, you yourself would be committing an argmentum ad logicam.
I’ve shown above how he ought to have made his point. If you think you find a problem with it, let me know. Otherwise, his conclusion stands unchallenged.
I hope you like it here.)