A Question of Order
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-11-2012, 12:07 AM
RE: A Question of Order
(13-11-2012 07:38 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(13-11-2012 04:14 PM)Egor Wrote:  Oh, I'm sorry. I must have missed that. When did we prove God didn't create the order in the universe? Consider
We didn't. We also didn't have to. It's an argument from ignorance, a fallacy in which you try to answer an unanswered (or unanswerable) question by just guessing. If I find that one of my shoes is missing, simply answering the question of "where is my missing shoe?" with "a goblin stole it" is an argument from ignorance, because I'm guessing at the answer to a question that I can't answer.

If you want us to believe that God created order in the universe, you have to present evidence other than "for lack of an answer, it's my personal guess".
I don't think it qualifies as an argument from ignorance, unless God is defined in some very strong way relevant, to actual tributes.
Even from an evolutionary position, the reason that allegedly tiny ball exploded, as the source , such, could be loosely termed God, minus all the trappings, as creator in a bare bones scenario. Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2012, 01:07 AM
RE: A Question of Order
(14-11-2012 12:07 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(13-11-2012 07:38 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  We didn't. We also didn't have to. It's an argument from ignorance, a fallacy in which you try to answer an unanswered (or unanswerable) question by just guessing. If I find that one of my shoes is missing, simply answering the question of "where is my missing shoe?" with "a goblin stole it" is an argument from ignorance, because I'm guessing at the answer to a question that I can't answer.

If you want us to believe that God created order in the universe, you have to present evidence other than "for lack of an answer, it's my personal guess".
I don't think it qualifies as an argument from ignorance, unless God is defined in some very strong way relevant, to actual tributes.
Even from an evolutionary position, the reason that allegedly tiny ball exploded, as the source , such, could be loosely termed God, minus all the trappings, as creator in a bare bones scenario. Cool
It's kinda hard to say that something at the beginning of time had a preceding reason for it, but I'll move past that to my bigger complaint. God, as a figure of religious worship in the Abrahamic tradition (and, really, that's what we're talking about), is almost universally regarded as having some degree of sapience and sentience. Thinking, feeling (wrath, anyone?) having A Plan, so on and so on. That's the difference between a Creator versus a hitherto unknown stage in the history of the physical universe. So if you're going from a hypothetical cause preceding the big bang (which, as I said, I hold some skepticism regarding) to said cause having that additional quality of sapience... well, you'll have to come back and fetch me, because I'm not nearly athletic enough to leap that far.

Also, if anything (like the Big Bang) must have a cause, you have to address why some First Cause doesn't abide by that rule, or I get to scoff. I don't think you've used those words, but you are recycling the argument. Actually, you know what? Go ahead and let that slide. I'm good at scoffing, and it's fun.

And, hey, if we're just naming things we're pretty sure are there God just because we want God to exist, you are working WAY to hard for it. You want a proof that God exists? Here it is. Imagine I just got a rescue puppy home from the pound, who has now proceeded to paw, prance, and play a path into my pulsing pulmonaries. (And if you think that's too much of the letter "p", you should see the stains.) In a fit of dyslexia, I name this piddling pooch God. LO, GOD EXISTS! PROOF BY EXAMPLE! As a new convert, I shall present a daily tithe of kibble to my new household God, and sacrifice all my furniture on the altar of the Lord Puppy.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
14-11-2012, 01:54 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(13-11-2012 04:14 PM)Egor Wrote:  What? Hobo
Are you willing to say there is order, or an observable pattern, within nothingness?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2012, 03:26 PM
RE: A Question of Order
Am I the only one who noticed that rainbow icon, indicating either a joke or some kind of troll physics?

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
14-11-2012, 04:20 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(14-11-2012 01:07 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(14-11-2012 12:07 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I don't think it qualifies as an argument from ignorance, unless God is defined in some very strong way relevant, to actual tributes.
Even from an evolutionary position, the reason that allegedly tiny ball exploded, as the source , such, could be loosely termed God, minus all the trappings, as creator in a bare bones scenario. Cool
It's kinda hard to say that something at the beginning of time had a preceding reason for it, but I'll move past that to my bigger complaint. God, as a figure of religious worship in the Abrahamic tradition (and, really, that's what we're talking about), is almost universally regarded as having some degree of sapience and sentience. Thinking, feeling (wrath, anyone?) having A Plan, so on and so on. That's the difference between a Creator versus a hitherto unknown stage in the history of the physical universe. So if you're going from a hypothetical cause preceding the big bang (which, as I said, I hold some skepticism regarding) to said cause having that additional quality of sapience... well, you'll have to come back and fetch me, because I'm not nearly athletic enough to leap that far.

Also, if anything (like the Big Bang) must have a cause, you have to address why some First Cause doesn't abide by that rule, or I get to scoff. I don't think you've used those words, but you are recycling the argument. Actually, you know what? Go ahead and let that slide. I'm good at scoffing, and it's fun.

And, hey, if we're just naming things we're pretty sure are there God just because we want God to exist, you are working WAY to hard for it. You want a proof that God exists? Here it is. Imagine I just got a rescue puppy home from the pound, who has now proceeded to paw, prance, and play a path into my pulsing pulmonaries. (And if you think that's too much of the letter "p", you should see the stains.) In a fit of dyslexia, I name this piddling pooch God. LO, GOD EXISTS! PROOF BY EXAMPLE! As a new convert, I shall present a daily tithe of kibble to my new household God, and sacrifice all my furniture on the altar of the Lord Puppy.
My argument is simply that any source that initiated the Universe, as prime mover, could be called God in terms of its creative power. Why not? As for the Abrahamic religion, the god in this instance was given its characteristics by the desert dwellers.
Your puppy analogy may work for you but it doesn't for me.
A mystical creative cosmic force, good, bad, or indifferent would belong to an entirely different domain to a piddling puppy, the likes of which are not rare by any means.

If you don't want a creative force, of some kind to have existed (exist) you would not be here. I am not obliged to give this force any characteristics, other than initial motivator, so why get upset and assume I am trying to?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2012, 04:38 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(14-11-2012 04:20 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(14-11-2012 01:07 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  It's kinda hard to say that something at the beginning of time had a preceding reason for it, but I'll move past that to my bigger complaint. God, as a figure of religious worship in the Abrahamic tradition (and, really, that's what we're talking about), is almost universally regarded as having some degree of sapience and sentience. Thinking, feeling (wrath, anyone?) having A Plan, so on and so on. That's the difference between a Creator versus a hitherto unknown stage in the history of the physical universe. So if you're going from a hypothetical cause preceding the big bang (which, as I said, I hold some skepticism regarding) to said cause having that additional quality of sapience... well, you'll have to come back and fetch me, because I'm not nearly athletic enough to leap that far.

Also, if anything (like the Big Bang) must have a cause, you have to address why some First Cause doesn't abide by that rule, or I get to scoff. I don't think you've used those words, but you are recycling the argument. Actually, you know what? Go ahead and let that slide. I'm good at scoffing, and it's fun.

And, hey, if we're just naming things we're pretty sure are there God just because we want God to exist, you are working WAY to hard for it. You want a proof that God exists? Here it is. Imagine I just got a rescue puppy home from the pound, who has now proceeded to paw, prance, and play a path into my pulsing pulmonaries. (And if you think that's too much of the letter "p", you should see the stains.) In a fit of dyslexia, I name this piddling pooch God. LO, GOD EXISTS! PROOF BY EXAMPLE! As a new convert, I shall present a daily tithe of kibble to my new household God, and sacrifice all my furniture on the altar of the Lord Puppy.
My argument is simply that any source that initiated the Universe, as prime mover, could be called God in terms of its creative power. Why not? As for the Abrahamic religion, the god in this instance was given its characteristics by the desert dwellers.
Your puppy analogy may work for you but it doesn't for me.
A mystical creative cosmic force, good, bad, or indifferent would belong to an entirely different domain to a piddling puppy, the likes of which are not rare by any means.

If you don't want a creative force, of some kind to have existed (exist) you would not be here. I am not obliged to give this force any characteristics, other than initial motivator, so why get upset and assume I am trying to?
The issue is largely using the word God for something that does not bear much (hardly any, in fact) resemblance to what most people think of when they hear or use the word. It's confusing and misleading.

Why confuse the issue?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
14-11-2012, 04:50 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(14-11-2012 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-11-2012 04:20 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  My argument is simply that any source that initiated the Universe, as prime mover, could be called God in terms of its creative power. Why not? As for the Abrahamic religion, the god in this instance was given its characteristics by the desert dwellers.
Your puppy analogy may work for you but it doesn't for me.
A mystical creative cosmic force, good, bad, or indifferent would belong to an entirely different domain to a piddling puppy, the likes of which are not rare by any means.

If you don't want a creative force, of some kind to have existed (exist) you would not be here. I am not obliged to give this force any characteristics, other than initial motivator, so why get upset and assume I am trying to?
The issue is largely using the word God for something that does not bear much (hardly any, in fact) resemblance to what most people think of when they hear or use the word. It's confusing and misleading.

Why confuse the issue?
Why not? Why just let things rest on tired old Christian arguments?
In a book by Michael Dowd (Thank god for Evolution) the writer relates god to nature and evolution throughout.
Dowd is a Christian of sorts and is given a lot of support by numerous cosmologists, not to mention Michael Shermer.
I think it is a mistake to restrict arguments relating to God to a strictly Judaeo/Christian perspective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2012, 04:54 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(14-11-2012 04:50 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(14-11-2012 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  The issue is largely using the word God for something that does not bear much (hardly any, in fact) resemblance to what most people think of when they hear or use the word. It's confusing and misleading.

Why confuse the issue?
Why not? Why just let things rest on tired old Christian arguments?
In a book by Michael Dowd (Thank god for Evolution) the writer relates god to nature and evolution throughout.
Dowd is a Christian of sorts and is given a lot of support by numerous cosmologists, not to mention Michael Shermer.
I think it is a mistake to restrict arguments relating to God to a strictly Judaeo/Christian perspective.
No, I'm saying restrict it to supernatural gobbledygook perspective.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2012, 04:57 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(14-11-2012 03:26 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Am I the only one who noticed that rainbow icon, indicating either a joke or some kind of troll physics?
I did not realize that some topics were considered unworthy, thanks for the tip off.
Maybe I will need to self censor my posts...... Unsure
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2012, 05:42 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(14-11-2012 04:50 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I think it is a mistake to restrict arguments relating to God to a strictly Judaeo/Christian perspective.

The OP believes in Jesus, ergo confining the god concept to YHWH is topical.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: