@moonbus saidIf I'm reading your two posts above correctly, it appears that the bottom line for those that deny the existence of a creator based on the argument that states there is no evidence, not even the existence of the universe, that proves the universe was created.
The problem with appealing to a creator to explain existence is that it does not explain anything; it replaces one mystery by an even greater one. If a theist wants to claim that God is self-explanatory, necessarily existent, and requires no further reason or cause to exist, then a philosopher can just as well make the same claims about existence: that it is self-explanatory, ...[text shortened]... st unexplained visible mystery instead of compounding it with another unexplained invisible mystery.
Essentially, that renders all arguments, either for or against, nil and void.
Smacks of nihilism don't you think?
Seems this default argument of nothing proves nothing renders itself inviable, coherently infeasible and cognitively paralyzing.
Obviously that is why the thinking of many falls on the side of random chance.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29220
@secondson saidIf you're okay with that sir, I'll happily refer to your argument as unreasonable?
Would the term "unreasonable" be more palatable? 🙂
😆
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29220
@secondson saidImagine a chap (let's call him Bob) awakes from a coma with absolutely no memory and for the first time is presented with the ideas of an eternal God and an eternal Universe. Would he be perplexed by one notion more than the other, do you think, or indeed be able to evidence either?
If I'm reading your two posts above correctly, it appears that the bottom line for those that deny the existence of a creator based on the argument that states there is no evidence, not even the existence of the universe, that proves the universe was created.
Essentially, that renders all arguments, either for or against, nil and void.
Smacks of nihilism don't you thi ...[text shortened]... tively paralyzing.
Obviously that is why the thinking of many falls on the side of random chance.
07 Jan 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAin't that what we all say? 🤷🏻♂️
If you're okay with that sir, I'll happily refer to your argument as unreasonable?
😆
07 Jan 19
@secondson saidI believe word salad exists. I believe that the existence of word salad supports the idea that nothing proves nothing.
Seems this default argument of nothing proves nothing renders itself inviable, coherently infeasible and cognitively paralyzing.Obviously that is why the thinking of many falls on the side of random chance.
07 Jan 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidWell, if Bob has absolutely no memory, but still has full brain function, I'd say he's going to be back at school for at least 12 years just to come up to speed intellectually to that of a teenager.
Imagine a chap (let's call him Bob) awakes from a coma with absolutely no memory and for the first time is presented with the ideas of an eternal God and an eternal Universe. Would he be perplexed by one notion more than the other, do you think, or indeed be able to evidence either?
Then add to that 4-6 more years of higher education, plus another 20+ years experience working through hundreds of thousands of thought processes, juxtaposing countless abstract concepts and sifting through a million bits of information and learning to recognize what is true from what is false, then he can join us here and we'll all tell him how unreasonable he is. 😜
07 Jan 19
@fmf saidProves one thing. It proves you got nothing. Nothing to contribute but Word salad.
I believe word salad exists. I believe that the existence of word salad supports the idea that nothing proves nothing.
If anything and everything that is said, relative to the discussion about the origin of life, can be said to be unprovable, then we're all fools.
But I disagree with the assertion that says what exists doesn't prove anything, or anything that is said about it is word salad.
That what exists exists without it being evidentiary of why it exists, then something is missing in our perception of what exists.
07 Jan 19
@secondson saidI am not contributing 'word salad'. I am not typing things like "coherently infeasible" and "cognitively paralyzing".
Proves one thing. It proves you got nothing. Nothing to contribute but Word salad.
@secondson saidWhat definition of 'word salad' are you using? "Science" and "faith" are separate things. The nature of the universe gives you "faith". Good for you.
But I disagree with the assertion that says what exists doesn't prove anything, or anything that is said about it is word salad.
The same goes for people who are well educated and erudite, just as it goes for people who are inarticulate and ill-educated.
Either way, most people can probably see that "science" and "faith" are different realms in crucial ways. You sound like you're trying too hard to puff your chest out when you talk about dissenting ideas being "coherently infeasible" and "cognitively paralyzing" [i.e. word salad]. There's no need to.
07 Jan 19
@secondson saidI am asserting that the nothingness of word salad proves nothing.
But I disagree with the assertion that says what exists doesn't prove anything, or anything that is said about it is word salad.
08 Jan 19
@secondson saidThe words "evidentiary of why it exists" in quotation marks get exactly NO hits on Google. That takes some doing. You're trying too hard. Your word salad draws attention to the very thing your word salad is trying to hide.
That what exists exists without it being evidentiary of why it exists, then something is missing in our perception of what exists.
08 Jan 19
@fmf saidObviously you have no idea what I'm talking about.
What definition of 'word salad' are you using? "Science" and "faith" are separate things. The nature of the universe gives you "faith". Good for you.
The same goes for people who are well educated and erudite, just as it goes for people who are inarticulate and ill-educated.
Either way, most people can probably see that "science" and "faith" are different realms in crucia ...[text shortened]... as being "coherently infeasible" and "cognitively paralyzing" [i.e. word salad]. There's no need to.