What is wrong with this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2014, 09:57 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
(01-05-2014 08:37 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 08:31 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  Eh doesn't roll off the tongue as much Tongue

[Image: tongue.gif]

Lmao

(01-05-2014 08:55 AM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  J Dog have you seen this website?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Nope but will check it out! Thanks for pointing it out to me.

(01-05-2014 09:03 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 06:22 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  So I was browsing the interwebz as I usually do and was looking at Yahoo Answers about the question "Why do people believe in a God?" and I saw this argument. Can you spot the dumb parts of this argument?

So which is it, was there true nothing before the big bang or not ?
He or she asserts a true nothing and then says that a god is there too ?
You can't have both.

If he or she is asserting that something is there to get the ball rolling then there cannot be a true nothing and if there never was a true nothing then the universe has always existed. It never came into being at all. It simply always was, just not in it's current form.

Yeah doesn't seem like he thinks much he just goes with what supports his argument.

(01-05-2014 09:04 AM)Charis Wrote:  Many fundies would answer thus:

Nobody created God. He exists outside of time. He is a spirit, and not bound by space and time. He is eternal. He speaks matter into existence. He does not require matter on hand in order to form material things. He is all-powerful.

Former Fundy, reporting in.

Thank you for your insight Smile Unfortunately being all-powerful and being omnipotent creates a paradox. The old could god create a boulder heavier than even he can lift question.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JDog554's post
01-05-2014, 10:19 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
What's wrong with that argument is people have been repeating it for thousands of years, completely ignoring objections, and the flawed question begging nature of it.

β€œIt is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
01-05-2014, 10:24 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
Quote:There is reason to believe in a creator.
No, there isn't.

Quote:Ill start with the primary argument of a Christian.
I'm not sure I buy even this. It is a primary argument, but there are others.

Quote:Something cant come from nothing.
But then they say gawd did exactly that - or gawd "always existed" which amounts to no more than an arbitrary assertion.

Quote:And I dont mean the kind of nothing that involves matter and antimatter canceling each other out. I mean true nothing. Before anything existed, there was no THING that could have cause the big bang or whatever caused it.
Another arbitrary assertion based on absolutely nothing but ignorance and one that has the ironic conclusion that gawd itself could not have caused the big bang. Also: "Or whatever caused it"... "whatever" would be a thing. Laughat

Quote: The laws of physics tell us that an object at rest will stay at rest unless energy affects it.
Um, the laws of physics in this universe... There is a very good chance that physics was completely different before the big bang - if there was a "before" at all.

Quote:So far, to create the universe that we live in, we need two things: the creation of matter and energy to make the matter go BANG! literally.
They say gawd "always existed", but ignore the equally possible and frankly more plausible explanation that matter in some form always existed. So creating matter may not have been necessary at all.

Quote:Clearly, since there was no matter before matter was created, the answer cannot be anything physical.
See reply immediately above this one. Created matter is an assumption.

Quote:We need something that exists outside of the universe
There is an "outside the universe"? That hasn't been established.

Quote: and has the power to create anything at will and form what has been formed.
Why "at will"? Even if the rest is correct, it still could have been an event that simply just happened and by nothing that is self-directed.

Quote:We need a supernatural being.
Wow, what a huge leap that doesn't follow at all from anything said before this point even if everything said was actually fact.

Quote:Notice that I haven't said anything about the God of Christianity yet, I just provided a little bit of the vast pool of evidence that we have to know that there is an omnipotent being.
Not "evidence", not knowledge, and another arbitrary assertion - omnipotence.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 10:46 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
(01-05-2014 10:24 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
Quote:There is reason to believe in a creator.
No, there isn't.

Quote:Ill start with the primary argument of a Christian.
I'm not sure I buy even this. It is a primary argument, but there are others.

Quote:Something cant come from nothing.
But then they say gawd did exactly that - or gawd "always existed" which amounts to no more than an arbitrary assertion.

Quote:And I dont mean the kind of nothing that involves matter and antimatter canceling each other out. I mean true nothing. Before anything existed, there was no THING that could have cause the big bang or whatever caused it.
Another arbitrary assertion based on absolutely nothing but ignorance and one that has the ironic conclusion that gawd itself could not have caused the big bang. Also: "Or whatever caused it"... "whatever" would be a thing. Laughat

Quote: The laws of physics tell us that an object at rest will stay at rest unless energy affects it.
Um, the laws of physics in this universe... There is a very good chance that physics was completely different before the big bang - if there was a "before" at all.

Quote:So far, to create the universe that we live in, we need two things: the creation of matter and energy to make the matter go BANG! literally.
They say gawd "always existed", but ignore the equally possible and frankly more plausible explanation that matter in some form always existed. So creating matter may not have been necessary at all.

Quote:Clearly, since there was no matter before matter was created, the answer cannot be anything physical.
See reply immediately above this one. Created matter is an assumption.

Quote:We need something that exists outside of the universe
There is an "outside the universe"? That hasn't been established.

Quote: and has the power to create anything at will and form what has been formed.
Why "at will"? Even if the rest is correct, it still could have been an event that simply just happened and by nothing that is self-directed.

Quote:We need a supernatural being.
Wow, what a huge leap that doesn't follow at all from anything said before this point even if everything said was actually fact.

Quote:Notice that I haven't said anything about the God of Christianity yet, I just provided a little bit of the vast pool of evidence that we have to know that there is an omnipotent being.
Not "evidence", not knowledge, and another arbitrary assertion - omnipotence.

Wow, plenty of good points Thumbsup

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JDog554's post
01-05-2014, 11:26 AM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2014 11:31 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: What is wrong with this argument
(01-05-2014 06:22 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  So I was browsing the interwebz as I usually do and was looking at Yahoo Answers about the question "Why do people believe in a God?" and I saw this argument. Can you spot the dumb parts of this argument?

Quote:There is reason to believe in a creator. Ill start with the primary argument of a Christian. Something cant come from nothing. And I dont mean the kind of nothing that involves matter and antimatter canceling each other out. I mean true nothing. Before anything existed, there was no THING that could have cause the big bang or whatever caused it. The laws of physics tell us that an object at rest will stay at rest unless energy affects it. So far, to create the universe that we live in, we need two things: the creation of matter and energy to make the matter go BANG! literally. Clearly, since there was no matter before matter was created, the answer cannot be anything physical. We need something that exists outside of the universe and has the power to create anything at will and form what has been formed. We need a supernatural being.
Notice that I haven't said anything about the God of Christianity yet, I just provided a little bit of the vast pool of evidence that we have to know that there is an omnipotent being.

You say "Can you spot the dumb part" as if there's a part that isn't dumb.

But let's march through this, shall we?

First of all, the Big Bang is not identified as the beginning of the universe. It is identified as the beginning of the OBSERVABLE universe. (Actually, the beginning of the observable universe is AFTER the Big Bang, because our powers of observation aren't equal to actually observing the Big Bang itself, but what we do observe is highly indicative of the Big Bang.) Some models have matter (AND ENERGY, that keeps getting left out of this argument) and the universe as well and even time beginning to exist at this moment. Other models have something preceding the Big Bang, such as a collapsing hyperdimensional string or a preceding Big Crunch (which is looking less likely these days, I'll admit).

So this person's underlying premise, that reality began to exist rather than being eternal, is unsupported by the Big Bang. Some models have that as the case, others do not. It is not established. "Before anything began to exist" is begging the question of whether there was ever a time when nothing existed.

I'll put forward a few other quibbles. "Exists outside the universe"... did the collapsing 14(?) dimensional string of String Theory exist outside the universe? Would the preceding Crunch of a Bang/Crunch cycle be this universe, or a previous one? "Universe" needs to be more clearly delineated. "The Laws of Physics Tell us...." ... did those laws exist at the supposed beginning of the universe? If not, why would the origin of the universe be restrained by them? If so, wouldn't they count as something which already existed and, if so, was that really the beginning of the universe? "Power to create anything at will and form what has been formed." .... Two problems here. First, "at will" implies a will. This is not a deterministic or probabilistic phenomenon. No, somehow.... with not the slightest shred of support... this is put forward as something with a will. But second, even if ALL the other objections were to be ignored and the rest of the argument were foolishly granted? How the hell do you go from Formed This Particular Universe to Power to Create ANYTHING? It's like saying, "hey, this guy made a bicycle, that means he can make an FTL warp drive." Even if EVERYTHING else were granted -- and there is no reason it should be -- omnipotence is far, far, far from established.

I can't even count all the fallacies in this. But what they all have in common is that they're subtle. I... guess I'd call it "greasing the slope", though that's not the name of a formal fallacy. He or she doesn't have a slippery slope leading straight from premise to conclusion, but one is desired, so one uses a bunch of little, easy-to-miss falacies to provide the needed lubrication.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: