|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 26, 2006 10:53:23 GMT -5
religion was intruiging until humans came along...
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 26, 2006 17:05:10 GMT -5
The athiest, or so-called intellectual has no explanation for origins. You cannot, no matter how hard you try, explain to me where the universe came from.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 26, 2006 17:48:17 GMT -5
There are two possible pre-suppositions for where the universe came from. 1) God 2) The big bang False dilemma. It's possible that the universe originated from some third source. In fact, the "big bang" doesn't explain the "origins" of the universe ... it only explains why the universe appears to expand and why it might be structured the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 26, 2006 17:50:58 GMT -5
Let me first refute the bang theory by on esimple question, where did the matter to make the bang come from? If you answer that one, next answer this one, where did the space for the bang to happen in come from? The only logical conlcusion is God. "In the beginning God..." (Gen 1:1) This is another informal fallacy called "special pleading". You say the big bang is refuted because it does not explain where matter comes from. Unfortunately, if you claim that God created matter it just begs the question "what created God?" By implying that you do not have to explain the origins of God, you have set up different rules for the big bang and creation. That's special pleading.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 26, 2006 17:55:45 GMT -5
Big bang - In the beginning there was nothing, and then nothing exploded (Just think about that for a bit). That is what we are taught in school, you came from nothing, that expoloded. That's a straw man arguement. Big bang theory actually proposes that all the matter of the universe existed in an infinitely small space called the "singularity", then the singularity "exploded". When you purposely misrepresent your opponent's arguement then refute your own spurious arguement it is called a straw man arguement.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 26, 2006 17:58:20 GMT -5
Come on, tell me where the universe came from!
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 26, 2006 18:04:23 GMT -5
Rather maddening isnt it. That is what you do to us. We are telling you what the Bible says and that it is true, and you say we are using circular reasoning and cant do that. But yet you tell us, out of your literature that we dont belive, why your viewpoint is true. I thought I would level the playing field. You see the fallacy in your circular reasoning judgement. In cant be done. This is a false analogy. You cannot use the bible to support the validity of a scientific theory. If a scientist wants to cite a scholarly journal article or an academic text to support string theory, big bang theory, stellar evolution or biological evolution, then that is reasonable because those writings summarize actual scientific findings from actual scientific research. Citing scientific texts is citing empirical evidence, which is appropriate if you want to support a scientific position. The bible, OTOH, is a religious and possibly historical text. If you wanted to use the bible to support a theological arguement about origins, then it would be appropriate. Of course, your theological origins arguement would NOT refute any scientific arguements. It's called non-overlapping magisteria. Using the bible as a historical to support a historical arguement would be questionable and it still wouldn't refute a scientific arguement because history and science are different disciplines of thought.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 26, 2006 18:18:33 GMT -5
The athiest, or so-called intellectual has no explanation for origins. You cannot, no matter how hard you try, explain to me where the universe came from. That's actually true. No scientific theory could ever explain the origins of matter. Any scientist who tells you different is a fraud. The scientific law concerning conservation of energy and Einstein's relativity together imply that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, so either these scientific theories are incorrect or no new scientific theory could explain the origins of matter. Origin of matter is not a scientific question, it is either a metaphysical question or, for some people, a theological question. Again, I will point out that any theological answer is potentially based on special pleading concerning the origins of God.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 26, 2006 18:25:00 GMT -5
SO in other words yours is based on special pleading concerning a naturalsitic origin.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 27, 2006 2:09:32 GMT -5
SO in other words yours is based on special pleading concerning a naturalsitic origin. I'm not sure what you mean. It would only be special pleading if I held big bang theory or biological evolution to a different (and favorable) standard than the standard I apply to intelligent design or creation. I've allowed big bang theory and biological evolution to rely on certain assumptions, namely that matter and space exist or that life exists and has heritible material which produces variations. I've also allowed intelligent design to assume the existence of supernatural beings. I don't see how I've used special pleading, because I'm allowing all theories to rely on assumptions. I don't personally fault creation/intelligent design because it relies on assumptions; I fault creation/intelligent design because its assumptions cannot produce refutable conclusions. I'm holding all theories up to the same standards: all theories may rely upon assumptions, but all theories must be refutable. I see no special pleading. Your arguements contain special pleading because you require big bang theory to explain the origins of matter and you require biological evolution to explain the origins of first life, yet you do not expect creationism/intelligent design to explain the origins of God. You've challenged the truth of the secular assumptions, but you're saying that I cannot challenge your assumption about the existence of God. That's an unfair double standard. That's special pleading. You evangeletards always assume that secularists haven't thought things out thoroughly. You assume that we share your motivations, and that we would blindly defend our theories just as you blindly defend yours. You're wrong. If there are faults with scientific theories, I usually find them and openly identify them in my own arguements. I take academia very seriously. When it comes to science, I do not intend to decieve anyone. I only lie for sport when it comes to morality.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 3, 2006 2:51:26 GMT -5
evan, you said, "The athiest, or so-called intellectual has no explanation for origins. You cannot, no matter how hard you try, explain to me where the universe came from."
however, the reason why religion exists is because man has no explanation for origins. this being so, you cannot explain to me, no matter how hard you try, explain anything to me because it will be based on pure speculation and religious belief, emotion, etc.
|
|