12 Oct 11
Originally posted by Dasathat's because they have something called reason. something you're not very well acquainted with, let me explain the position. i know this will be a little tough for you, it uses grade 6 logic so try to follow along.
Atheism is synonymous with dishonesty.
Why?
Because they observe life coming from life.............and teach life comes from non life.
Edit: at least your post was polite.
if life only comes from life, then there must be life begetting life ad infinitum.
so it must be reasoned that at one point, there must have been an origin of life from non life.
if you claim that life comes from god, you have not escaped judgement for two possibilities exist:
god is alive: ergo he must himself have come from life according to the rule
god is not alive: ergo, your premise that life only comes from life is defeated and life can come from non-life.
if you claim that god has always been, then again you defeat your argument that life comes from life because you have made a special exception and your rule is invalidated.
12 Oct 11
2 edits
Sorry to burst your bubble voidspirit, but, even IF one postulates that life came from non-life, it still spirals back to infinitum.
You can't escape the infinity problem by just saying life came from non-life. Because whatever this "non-life" substance is, it still had to be created.
Now if you are actually arguing that existence came from absolutely nothing, which is the only way to escape the infinity problem, well then you are arguing for something utterly and completely fallacious.
With respect to the creation of our universe, The God hypothesis soundly defeats the "something from absolutely nothing" hypothesis on the basis of logic alone.. if for no other reason.
12 Oct 11
Originally posted by sumydidImo, nothing "defeats" anything when trying to acertain these sorts of questions (the sort of questions where the normal human ken fails to detect).
Sorry to burst your bubble voidspirit, but, even IF one postulates that life came from non-life, it still spirals back to infinitum.
You can't escape the infinity problem by just saying life came from non-life. Because whatever this "non-life" substance is, it still had to be created.
Now if you are actually arguing that existence came from absolutely ...[text shortened]... g from absolutely nothing" hypothesis on the basis of logic alone.. if for no other reason.
There is a need for "God", whether a hindu or a christian. The word "God" has been very useful in the past for explaining the unexplainable,(just to name one off the top of my head).
There has also been a need for science and athiesm, as they have tried to verify the claims of many religous/spiritual people in the past to sometimes come up with interesting results. (also to mainly throw out ridiculous religous ideas)
For example, it is my understsanding that the fact that atoms are made of (virtually) nothing has long been known in the East, but science has only proved it (quantum) in relativley recent times.
Without science, we would be living with superstitions, taboos,false knowledge,etc.
Without religon and "God" we would have no way of expressing verbally that which cant be expressed properly via normal logic and can only be HINTED at with words.
,with respect 🙂
12 Oct 11
Originally posted by sumydidthere was no bubble to burst, you have accomplished nothing. if life came from non life, it does not spiral back ad infinitum because we are talking about life, not existence.
Sorry to burst your bubble voidspirit, but, even IF one postulates that life came from non-life, it still spirals back to infinitum.
You can't escape the infinity problem by just saying life came from non-life. Because whatever this "non-life" substance is, it still had to be created.
Now if you are actually arguing that existence came from absolutely ...[text shortened]... g from absolutely nothing" hypothesis on the basis of logic alone.. if for no other reason.
you are right in that the infinity problem can't be escaped and it remains to this day a mystery. there is no shame in saying "we do not know, but what the heck, let's keep looking for the answers."
the god hypothesis does nothing to aid in finding answers. it does not defeat any argument from logic. the hypothesis itself is a logical fallacy. where there is an unknown phenomenon... something in which the effects can be observed but not the source, it is acceptable to have 'place holders' (for example dark energy, dark matter) and research may progress and evidence collected until at some point in the future, we may find a valid theory to explain the phenomenon.
to assert that "well it's [my particular version of] god, problem solved, nothing to see here, move along." is no help for any argument. it is claiming to have answers where there are no answers to be had.
12 Oct 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritthe god hypothesis does nothing to aid in finding answers??? I would say the opposite
there was no bubble to burst, you have accomplished nothing. if life came from non life, it does not spiral back ad infinitum because we are talking about life, not existence.
you are right in that the infinity problem can't be escaped and it remains to this day a mystery. there is no shame in saying "we do not know, but what the heck, let's keep loo ...[text shortened]... for any argument. it is claiming to have answers where there are no answers to be had.
is true, in fact, a purely materialistic point of view does nothing to help us find any
answers, in fact, knowing how a cake is baked, tells us absolutely nothing as to why it
was baked and for whom.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you want to explain something (anything) you have to do it in terms of something we already understand.
the god hypothesis does nothing to aid in finding answers??? I would say the opposite
is true, in fact, a purely materialistic point of view does nothing to help us find any
answers, in fact, knowing how a cake is baked, tells us absolutely nothing as to why it
was baked and for whom.
If you try to explain something in terms of something we don't/can't understand then you simply move our lack
of understanding from one thing to another.
As god/s is/are unexplained and inexplicable, he/she/it/they can't be used to 'explain' anything.
Also as there is no predicting what they might do or why any 'explanation' that uses god has absolutely zero
predictive power at all whatsoever.
As for your cake example... Materialists would have absolutely no trouble in explaining why, and who for, the cake was
made as cake is materiel and a made thing by the people who made it. All of which can be readily observed and
investigated.
If you are trying to extrapolate from your cake to the universe then it no longer makes sense to ask why it was made
or who it was made for, because you have absolutely no evidence it was 'made' at all.
12 Oct 11
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeok then, why does the universe exist. You have stated that you know how it came
If you want to explain something (anything) you have to do it in terms of something we already understand.
If you try to explain something in terms of something we don't/can't understand then you simply move our lack
of understanding from one thing to another.
As god/s is/are unexplained and inexplicable, he/she/it/they can't be used to 'explain'
or who it was made for, because you have absolutely no evidence it was 'made' at all.
about, then I want to know, why it came about. You have stated that a materialist can
answer the question, well , here is your chance. Why does the universe exist.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhoa there. I haven't said anywhere that I know why/how the universe exists.
ok then, why does the universe exist. You have stated that you know how it came
about, then I want to know, why it came about. You have stated that a materialist can
answer the question, well , here is your chance. Why does the universe exist.
I don't know how the universe came to exist, or if it has existed forever.
However my point was that just because we don't know, is not a good or
justifiable reason for saying god did it (which is a god of the gaps btw).
Saying god did it isn't trying to explain things it's giving up on trying to explain things.
Read my post again as you obviously didn't read it right.
12 Oct 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeoh i read it alright, i simply dismissed it as the words of a madman. sooo lets get this,
Whoa there. I haven't said anywhere that I know why/how the universe exists.
I don't know how the universe came to exist, or if it has existed forever.
However my point was that just because we don't know, is not a good or
justifiable reason for saying god did it (which is a god of the gaps btw).
Saying god did it isn't trying to explain things ...[text shortened]... on trying to explain things.
Read my post again as you obviously didn't read it right.
you know how the universe came into existence, yet knowing as much, does not tell us
why it came into existence. Logically it therefore appears that a materialistic
understanding of the processes which we observe inherently at work within the
universe cannot tell us anything about why it came into existence. Is it not the case.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot that I need to defend googlefudge, but he simply did not say what you said he said.
oh i read it alright, i simply dismissed it as the words of a madman. sooo lets get this,
you know how the universe came into existence, yet knowing as much, does not tell us
why it came into existence. Logically it therefore appears that a materialistic
understanding of the processes which we observe inherently at work within the
universe cannot tell us anything about why it came into existence. Is it not the case.
I would love to know why the universe came into question, but you should be able to accept that the inability to answer the question says nothing about the validity of the belief that the question has, in fact, no answer. And the fact that it has no answer (because someone believes that there is no "why" does not mean that we should dismiss the conclusion that the question has no answer.
If your view is that the concept of a universe coming into existence without a reason is unacceptable, then that is your view. Tempting though I sometimes find this, it does not render a person who does not hold this view a madman. I usually find it the other way round, and that the more fundamentalist a person is in their attitude to faith, the more they have characteristics that tend towards madness.
After all, it has always seemed to me self-evident that, had any person of a particular faith been born in a different place and time, they would most certainly have been of a different regligion, and may have never have heard of the religion they currently practice. To therefore argue that this religion is certainly right, and all others are certainly wrong when, but for the casual chance of where you were born and why, you would have been arguing precisely the same for another religion, is bordering on this type of madness.
But you shouldn't misrepresent someone's position just because you do not like the conclusion it reaches.
12 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsidera simple, 'no from a purely materialistic perspective we cannot possibly know why the universe exists', would has sufficed.
Not that I need to defend googlefudge, but he simply did not say what you said he said.
I would love to know why the universe came into question, but you should be able to accept that the inability to answer the question says nothing about the validity of the belief that the question has, in fact, no answer. And the fact that it has no answer (beca dn't misrepresent someone's position just because you do not like the conclusion it reaches.
12 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK - I can accept that, if you can also accept that it is a valid view there does not have to be an answer to the question.
a simple, 'no from a purely materialistic perspective we cannot possibly know why the universe exists', would has sufficed.
Nice to end on a point of agreement for a change!
12 Oct 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsideryou know, when i was being interviewed for entry to art school, a lecturer there, during
OK - I can accept that, if you can also accept that it is a valid view there does not have to be an answer to the question.
Nice to end on a point of agreement for a change!
the interview proffered similar sentiments, he stated, 'there are no right answers, only
correct questions', now while i had to physically restrain myself from jumping out of
my chair like a stag being chased by a leopard and slapping his forehead, i refrained
and smiled politely for i wanted the interview to go well. Inside my mind i was
thinking, if there are no right answers, then why are we searching for solutions? To
state that there does not have to be a valid point of view is based upon what? an
assumption that a solution cannot be found, and as we know, arguments based upon
assumptions are like castles made of sand, they fall into the sea, eventually.
12 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, this time you are misrepresenting me, but you do tend to do that, so I'll let it go and not take it personally.
you know, when i was being interviewed for entry to art school, a lecturer there, during
the interview proffered similar sentiments, he stated, 'there are no right answers, only
correct questions', now while i had to physically restrain myself from jumping out of
my chair like a stag being chased by a leopard and slapping his forehead, i refrai ...[text shortened]... ts based upon
assumptions are like castles made of sand, they fall into the sea, eventually.
I do not assume that that there is no answer, but likewise I do not assume that there must be one either. You have made a huge assumption in assuming there must be one.
And, as a wise man once said, arguments based upon, assumptions are like castles made of sand, they fall into the sea, eventually.