• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Endless Punishment, Fundie style

CplFerro said:
The problem here, Giordano, is that we are dealing with a necessary substance, one that logic dictates must exist. So, the question turns on how is it that logic exists? I addressed that somewhat in my post #376. How can logic survive the PSR? I surmise that the answer to that is the answer to the necessary substance's survival as well.

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

God creates the laws of logic and then logic is used to prove that god created the laws of logic.

While I was getting on the ride I met myself getting off, were we ever confused.
 
What amazes me is the thought that using enough words will obscure the circularity of the argument. Do people who believe in these arguments not see that? If you reduce it to its essentials, it is absurd. Everything has a creator, except God, because otherwise nothing would exist, which would be bad. Not to mention that the people who make this argument are arguing for one particular God, and there are actually lots to choose from and who would fulfill the "logic" of the argument. But I will not bring up the latter point, because the response will undoubtably be a long argument about why only Christianity makes sense from a logical point of view.

It reminds me of some on the other end of the spectrum who believe that lots of words will lend gravity to a sensible and straightforward true statement. "Being poor sucks!" become "The limitations of the monetarily challenged have many repercussions in terms of nutrition and multifaceted allied goals." Words should be used to help explain your argument, not to hide it!
 
Giordano said:
What amazes me is the thought that using enough words will obscure the circularity of the argument. Do people who believe in these arguments not see that? If you reduce it to its essentials, it is absurd. Everything has a creator, except God, because otherwise nothing would exist, which would be bad. Not to mention that the people who make this argument are arguing for one particular God, and there are actually lots to choose from and who would fulfill the "logic" of the argument. But I will not bring up the latter point, because the response will undoubtably be a long argument about why only Christianity makes sense from a logical point of view.

It reminds me of some on the other end of the spectrum who believe that lots of words will lend gravity to a sensible and straightforward true statement. "Being poor sucks!" become "The limitations of the monetarily challenged have many repercussions in terms of nutrition and multifaceted allied goals." Words should be used to help explain your argument, not to hide it!
Click to expand...

But...but...surely a bigger circle with more words in it means it has more logic in it? That seems appears to be only logical!
 
Giordano said:
What amazes me is the thought that using enough words will obscure the circularity of the argument. Do people who believe in these arguments not see that? If you reduce it to its essentials, it is absurd. Everything has a creator, except God, because otherwise nothing would exist, which would be bad. Not to mention that the people who make this argument are arguing for one particular God, and there are actually lots to choose from and who would fulfill the "logic" of the argument. But I will not bring up the latter point, because the response will undoubtably be a long argument about why only Christianity makes sense from a logical point of view.

It reminds me of some on the other end of the spectrum who believe that lots of words will lend gravity to a sensible and straightforward true statement. "Being poor sucks!" become "The limitations of the monetarily challenged have many repercussions in terms of nutrition and multifaceted allied goals." Words should be used to help explain your argument, not to hide it!
Click to expand...

Where did the Universe come from, Giordano, if not from a necessary substance? Contingent turtles all the way back?

Cpl Ferro
 
CplFerro said:
Where did the Universe come from, Giordano, if not from a necessary substance? Contingent turtles all the way back?

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

Where did God come from? Oh, you already answered that; God didn't come from anything, he just had to be. Okay, the Universe just had to be. One answer should equally well answer the other, right?
 
Giordano said:
Where did God come from? Oh, you already answered that; God didn't come from anything, he just had to be. Okay, the Universe just had to be. One answer should equally well answer the other, right?
Click to expand...

Wrong, Giordano. The physical universe cannot be eternal, because of the impossibility of having an infinite amount of time elapse. The Universe is contingent, and cannot explain its own existence. That means the only option is to suppose a necessary substance that is not the physical Universe.

Cpl Ferro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom