Is there such thing as "Creation"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2014, 09:05 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(12-11-2014 07:27 AM)JonDarbyXIII Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This is like asking, "If societies have evolved through technology, why are there still third-world countries?"

Or like asking, "If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?"

Wink

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
12-11-2014, 09:19 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(12-11-2014 09:05 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-11-2014 07:27 AM)JonDarbyXIII Wrote:  This is like asking, "If societies have evolved through technology, why are there still third-world countries?"

Or like asking, "If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?"

Wink

Or it's like when someone makes a positive claim such as ...

Quote:The universe is not expanding "into" anything.

... when the reality is they don't have a fucking clue.

Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 09:28 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(12-11-2014 09:19 AM)Free Wrote:  
(12-11-2014 09:05 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Or like asking, "If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?"

Wink

Or it's like when someone makes a positive claim such as ...

Quote:The universe is not expanding "into" anything.

... when the reality is they don't have a fucking clue.

Big Grin

Some people seem to have real trouble understanding just what "positive claim" means.

Apparently you're one of them.

Oh, well. I'll explain again, because this is totally productive. If there is no reason whatsoever beyond naive, vapid "intuition" to think something is true, then saying "no, it's not true" is not making a positive claim. It is rejecting an incoherent and wholly unsupported presupposition. There is a difference between denying one claim and asserting another.

If you feel that rejecting totally meaningless and unsubstantiated feels-based non sequiturs is making a positive claim, I really can't help you.

Big Grin

And no, going full apologist by desperately maintaining "well you don't know for sure, so maybe I am right" is not compelling.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 10:00 AM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2014 10:18 AM by Free.)
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(12-11-2014 09:28 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-11-2014 09:19 AM)Free Wrote:  Or it's like when someone makes a positive claim such as ...


... when the reality is they don't have a fucking clue.

Big Grin

Some people seem to have real trouble understanding just what "positive claim" means.

Apparently you're one of them.

Oh, well. I'll explain again, because this is totally productive. If there is no reason whatsoever beyond naive, vapid "intuition" to think something is true, then saying "no, it's not true" is not making a positive claim. It is rejecting an incoherent and wholly unsupported presupposition. There is a difference between denying one claim and asserting another.

If you feel that rejecting totally meaningless and unsubstantiated feels-based non sequiturs is making a positive claim, I really can't help you.

Big Grin

And no, going full apologist by desperately maintaining "well you don't know for sure, so maybe I am right" is not compelling.

The problem is you didn't merely say "no," but rather asserted that something is true.

Since you asserted that something is true, the positiveness is clearly apparent.

When someone asserts that something is true, it is a positive claim regardless of grammatical application.

And you are welcome for the education. Enjoy.

Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 10:10 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 04:18 PM)Free Wrote:  I have no idea where the point of origin would have existed. All I am assuming is that there logically should be a point of origin at some specific place.
Pointing to the 'center' of the universe would be like trying to point to the center of the surface of the Earth.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 10:12 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(12-11-2014 10:10 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 04:18 PM)Free Wrote:  I have no idea where the point of origin would have existed. All I am assuming is that there logically should be a point of origin at some specific place.
Pointing to the 'center' of the universe would be like trying to point to the center of the surface of the Earth.

Agreed, somewhat.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 10:53 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(12-11-2014 10:00 AM)Free Wrote:  The problem is you didn't merely say "no," but rather asserted that something is true.

Since you asserted that something is true, the positiveness is clearly apparent.

When someone asserts that something is true, it is a positive claim regardless of grammatical application.

And you are welcome for the education. Enjoy.

Big Grin

I think you'll find the word not featured prominently; to any grammatical interpretation I'm aware of that constitutes precisely saying "no" (merely or otherwise). Allow me to explain. For review -
You: "X".
Me: "not X".

Note how this is a response. And do note (again) that rejecting a positive claim is not the same as making a positive claim. Do you understand this? Do you accept it?

Note too how your positive claim is also fundamentally meaningless. You seem to have difficulty accepting this. To deny it as I did is to affirm its meaninglessness.

If we're to disregard grammar and context in parsing meaning, then I am left with no idea as to just what you're hoping to accomplish.

Big Grin

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 11:04 AM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2014 12:10 PM by Free.)
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(12-11-2014 10:53 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-11-2014 10:00 AM)Free Wrote:  The problem is you didn't merely say "no," but rather asserted that something is true.

Since you asserted that something is true, the positiveness is clearly apparent.

When someone asserts that something is true, it is a positive claim regardless of grammatical application.

And you are welcome for the education. Enjoy.

Big Grin

I think you'll find the word not featured prominently; to any grammatical interpretation I'm aware of that constitutes precisely saying "no" (merely or otherwise). Allow me to explain. For review -
You: "X".
Me: "not X".

Note how this is a response. And do note (again) that rejecting a positive claim is not the same as making a positive claim. Do you understand this? Do you accept it?

Note too how your positive claim is also fundamentally meaningless. You seem to have difficulty accepting this. To deny it as I did is to affirm its meaninglessness.

If we're to disregard grammar and context in parsing meaning, then I am left with no idea as to just what you're hoping to accomplish.

Big Grin

You asserted that something was true, which points to affirmation. It does not matter in the slightest how the statement was grammatically constructed.

You asserted as true that the universe is not expanding into anything.

And that is a positive claim.

This is not rocket science, nor does it require mathematics. The assertion of truth is always a positive claim. Here is a hypothetical example:

Jack: The universe is not expanding into anything.
Jill: Are you asserting this is true?
Jack: Obviously I am.

In your statement we do require such an elaborate sequence of investigations to determine that you are asserting that something is true, as the assertion itself obviously demonstrates it on its own.

It's not always about the grammatical context, as it more about the message conveyed.

It's actually a paradox, for if you really think about it, every last thing we say is indeed a positive statement affirming that something is true, regardless if we lie. Even a question assumes the answer will be the truth.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 12:48 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(12-11-2014 11:04 AM)Free Wrote:  You asserted that something was true, which points to affirmation. It does not matter in the slightest how the statement was grammatically constructed.

Uh, no. I am "asserting" that your assertion is what we might call untrue - insofar as it's even meaningful, which it's not.

See the difference?

We're not obliged to entertain half-backed gutfeel presupposition just because we can't definitively disprove it.

Same reason you - I assume? - reject deistic and cosmological arguments. Or do you?

(12-11-2014 11:04 AM)Free Wrote:  You asserted as true that the universe is not expanding into anything.

And that is a positive claim.

This is not rocket science, nor does it require mathematics. The assertion of truth is always a positive claim. Here is a hypothetical example:

Jack: The universe is not expanding into anything.
Jill: Are you asserting this is true?
Jack: Obviously I am.

Well golly gosh, Free. Different people saying different things in a totally different conversation carry with them different meanings. I'm shocked. Shocked!

(12-11-2014 11:04 AM)Free Wrote:  In your statement we do require such an elaborate sequence of investigations to determine that you are asserting that something is true, as the assertion itself obviously demonstrates it on its own.

It's not always about the grammatical context, as it more about the message conveyed.

It's actually a paradox, for if you really think about it, every last thing we say is indeed a positive statement affirming that something is true, regardless if we lie. Even a question assumes the answer will be the truth.

In the most tedious sense, yes - to say "your claim is wrong" is itself an affirmation of something.

And we can take this entirely post-modern if you really want to, where nobody knows anything and all statements are meaningless because absolute knowledge is impossible...

But your closing statement is in fact quite relevant here. "A question assumes the answer will be the truth"; what, then, if one rejects the question?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 01:52 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(12-11-2014 12:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-11-2014 11:04 AM)Free Wrote:  You asserted that something was true, which points to affirmation. It does not matter in the slightest how the statement was grammatically constructed.

Uh, no. I am "asserting" that your assertion is what we might call untrue - insofar as it's even meaningful, which it's not.

The assertion of an affirmative is present in the statement. The reality is, despite the "outdated" comprehension and definitions of positive and negative claims, all statements are positive, even if they have the grammatical connotations of a negative.

Again it is not about the words that are uttered or written, but rather the message that is conveyed.

Quote:We're not obliged to entertain half-backed gutfeel presupposition just because we can't definitively disprove it.

No one obligated, true.

Quote:Same reason you - I assume? - reject deistic and cosmological arguments. Or do you?

Being a skeptical atheist, I question everything including the assumptions of science. Although I most certainly respect the advancements of science, I do not allow myself to be caught up into a belief system in regards to it.

You are leaning towards the origin of existence as being the Big Bang and expansion of space-time. You are adamant in claiming that nothing existed prior, and space is not expanding into anything.

To you, the universe as you understand it is all there is. Full Stop. You do not even appear to be willing to entertain any other possibilities. You have swallowed the status quo hook, line, and sinker.

Yet, ALL of it is still a theory. Yes I agree that there is apparent evidence to support the theory, but some of the interpretations of that evidence seems to be tainted with some confirmation bias. They started out with a theory, and now look for ways to confirm it.

Hence, my skepticism.


Quote:Well golly gosh, Free. Different people saying different things in a totally different conversation carry with them different meanings. I'm shocked. Shocked!

Like I said, it is unavoidable that our statements are positive claims.


Quote:But your closing statement is in fact quite relevant here. "A question assumes the answer will be the truth"; what, then, if one rejects the question?

If his position is one of absolute silence, then he rejects the question. No positive or negative statement was made.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: