Stop with the red herrings already. Is that really the best you can come up with? Omnipotence is not an issue here. Neither is the trinity. The issue here is your claim that the appearance of design implies the existence of a designerr. You conclude god. You have now to apply that same reasoning and must conclude god gotta daddy.Iacchus said:
Intelligence of Design
- Thread starter Iacchus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- design intelligence
Oh, indeed omnipotence is an issue. Why? Because as it suggests, it's that which transends everything, including infinite regression. Besides, if there was a cause and effect to everything, then at some point there must have been an original cause. However, since it's not conceivably possible for something to come from nothing, then it suggests the original cause has always been, and is not subject to any other rules. Why? Because it is the rules. While we also have a whole Universe to show for it. So, if you have a problem here, then you're going to have to explain to me how something can come from nothing. And I won't accept the notion that there was nothing before the Big Bang either. At the very least we had Eternity (Ever Presence) which, is not contingent upon time and space.BillHoyt said:
In other words Eternity exists in another dimension of which we are connected to via consciousness which, in fact is the dimension of consciousness itself. Ever consider that all we have is the here and now, and in that sense the past nor the future exists? In other words all we have is the Present Moment.Iacchus said:
Yes we do.Iacchus said:
If we shot you into space, you'd gradually be covered in objects of a smaller mass than you which are attracted to you because your mass exerts a greater force of gravity. Perhaps this attraction mean that gravity is beauty?Iacchus said:
I can ask why you are full of such irrational crap. Because I can ask this, it must therefore follow that you are full of irrational crap.
A story told by other than human tongues. Or no story at all.
Iacchus said:
This is a disingenuous intellectual dodge. You use the "evidence" of the universe's design to construct logic to argue for the existence of god. You refuse to use the logic on god, but then, your pre-ordained conclusion in hand, shut down all logical inquiry, and then invoke the unproven "omnipotence"
What you do here is make abundantly clear that your quest was never for truth, but to apologize for your belief. Sad.
The same dingenuousness is here as well. You stopped your logic the moment you got to your required conclusion. "Good, I got god. Q.E.D. We're done here."
What evidence do you have that something can't come from nothing? And what came before god? How did god come from nothing? This is just question begging.
Iacchus said:
This is a disingenuous intellectual dodge. You use the "evidence" of the universe's design to construct logic to argue for the existence of god. You refuse to use the logic on god, but then, your pre-ordained conclusion in hand, shut down all logical inquiry, and then invoke the unproven "omnipotence"
What you do here is make abundantly clear that your quest was never for truth, but to apologize for your belief. Sad.
The same dingenuousness is here as well. You stopped your logic the moment you got to your required conclusion. "Good, I got god. Q.E.D. We're done here."
What evidence do you have that something can't come from nothing? And what came before god? How did god come from nothing? This is just question begging.
DarkMagician
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,532
Quantum fluctuations might not last long, but they do produce particles w/ charges that can be measured.Iacchus said:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
I suggest you forget about cause arguments, because it's cause arguments all the way down.
~~ Paul
However, is Science really in a position to say whether something did or did not exist before the Big Bang? If not, then this is the only point I'm trying to make, for now anyway.Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
If not, then perhaps Mr. Hoyt should not be so insistent about putting the screws on me, because this is the only thing that's going to hold up his argument if, in fact something can come from nothing. Which I believe is impossible.Iacchus said:
Are you in a better position to say than science? Doubtful.
My understanding is that current thought is there was nothing before. "Before" may not even have any meaning -- oh that's right, you see meaning everywhere. A sign of a desperate and superstitous man. I'm certain people are investigating; we're building more powerful telescopes all the time, and very near the limit of how far back we should ever be able to see already.
My understanding is also that if there was anything before the big bang, all information would have been destroyed in the transition anyhow. That is, effectively, if there was something, we can never, ever know about it, and so it's as good as if there wasn't.
Your understanding is what, now? Absent as usual?
Am I in the position to say God exists? Perhaps. At least this is the standpoint I'm arguing from anyway. Can Science prove me wrong? No. Not anymore than it can prove there was nothing before the Big Bang. So, am I in a better position to say than science? You don't know.
Nice try on trying to convince everybody you know what you're talking about by the way.
Can Science prove me wrong? No. Not anymore than it can prove there was nothing before the Big Bang. So, am I in a better position to say than science? You don't know.Nice try on trying to convince everybody you know what you're talking about by the way.
Iacchus said:
Never seen a better example of argument from ignorance -- literally and metaphorically.
I hope no one was fooled. I'm no astrophysicist, and I fully expect someone who knows better than I do to step in and correct me if I was wrong.
Bullocks on two counts. First, you proffered the argument that the things we see in the universe look designed and that, therefore, there must have been a designer. I have responded to you that, by this same argument, the designer must have a designer. You have been unable to address this except by dodging and deflection. You have the problem, not I.Iacchus said:However, is Science really in a position to say whether something did or did not exist before the Big Bang? If not, then this is the only point I'm trying to make, for now anyway.
Second, you are now shifting the argument to the old "something can't come from nothing argument." Let us set aside for the moment what the cosmologists might speculate as to the universe before the big bang and look squarely at the just-so-story of the universe springing from God. We have the same infinite regress here. From whence did God spring? Did not God also come from nothing?
Both your arguments suffer from this same begging the question fallacy. They simply defer the problem, and refuse to deal with the same logic applied to your god answer.
Your arguments are severely flawed. They compel the conclusion that god gotta daddy.
I think this is the heart of the problem for strong anthropomorphic deists because they carnt imagine anything without themselves there to witness it; all the rest follows to compensate for that.scribble said:
Billy "pinnacle of creation" TK