God can't be God when there is nothing...So Man rescued him!

by Terry 48 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends on supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim.

  I found this part quite funny:

  or that something is false only because it has not been proved true

  So, someone saying that God doesn't exist because he hasn't been proven to exist is and "argument to ignorance" ?

  Or did I read that wrong?

  You probably ignored the important distinction between assertion and evidence!
• 

  sabastious

  That isn't how science works. Remember, science means knowledge both actual and useful because ours is a practical existence.

  That isn't how science works. The data available is laughable for or against a creator.

  There are many scenarios that would end up playing out just like the world we are living that involved us being created by a higher intellegence.

  All we know is that we are different from the animals (do we even know that?) and we don't know why.

  Seriously Terry, you are not speaking science you are speaking a science-philosophy hybrid.

  Your original post describes a paradox. You can't use a paradox as evidence for anything because it is, by definition, unexplainable.

  -Sab
• 

  PSacramento

  You probably ignored the important distinction between assertion and evidence!

  Hmmm, let's see if I did:

  . A claim's truth or falsity depends on supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim

  So, I make a claim and it must have some evidence ot back it up, right?

  Anyone choosing to refute THAT claim must have evidence to refute THAT claim, right?

  So if I claim that God exists because no other explanation is possible to the existence of the Universe, then to refute that, one must show evidence that the universe came to be in another way, right?

  If one CAN'T shwo that the universe came to be in any other way, then it is quite possible that the universe came to be Via God.

  Yes?
• 

  Terry

  Perhaps God is a being of pure energy, conscious energy, who then began spreading consciousness through other forms of energy.

  Energy is another one of those......(gasp!) silly words people toss around will-nilly.

  Energy is neither created nor destroyed. What does that say about the need for a creator?

  Energy is the motion of waves/particles. In a Universe which did not YET exist there would be an empty vastness in which there was no medium for motion. We frame our reference to a Creator in the cause and effect chain of reasoning and find ourselves (most of us) uncomfortable when we can't go back to an Ultimate "cause" and give it consciousness and purpose which includes US as the cherry on the sundae.

  But, that is hubris and not knowledge.
• 

  Terry

  Seriously Terry, you are not speaking science you are speaking a science-philosophy hybrid.

  Your original post describes a paradox. You can't use a paradox as evidence for anything because it is, by definition, unexplainable.

  Without philosophy (What do we know and how do we know it?) there would be no Science. You cannot separate into a false dichotomy of either/or.

  Secondly, reality and fact are non-contradictory.

  A pardox is a statement that contradicts itself due to self-reference.

  The purpose of this topic is to place a simple context of practical reality around the conceptual argument of God as "outside" of everything as an operative factor.

  Paradox is evidence of contradiction. Contradiction is evidence of a lie.

  God is a paradox vis a vis the definition/descriptors/attributes BECAUSE of the lie.

  That is a distinction with a difference worth noticing.
• 

  Terry

  So, I make a claim and it must have some evidence ot back it up, right?

  Anyone choosing to refute THAT claim must have evidence to refute THAT claim, right?

  So if I claim that God exists because no other explanation is possible to the existence of the Universe, then to refute that, one must show evidence that the universe came to be in another way, right?

  If one CAN'T shwo that the universe came to be in any other way, then it is quite possible that the universe came to be Via God.

  Yes?

  Here is how this works:

  You start with a premise. Logic chain-connects to a conclusion. The conclusion reflects the premise.

  The chain of reasoning can remain logical throughout and produce the result which follows the premise.

  IF you state your premise this way:

  EVERYTHING has to have a beginning. Therefore: the universe needs a beginning which must be God.

  Your conclusion logically follows your premise.

  The problem is that you did not apply your premise to your premise itself!

  This way:

  Since everything must have a beginning; God must have a creator too!

  That sort of euraborus (snake swallowing its own tail) is the silly conclusion to a false premise.

  Applying Occam's Razor we try it this way instead:

  The Universe is eternal. Engergy is eternal. That which is eternal requires no finite beginning.

  That which requires no finite beginning requires no Creator.

  See the difference?
• 

  PSacramento

  Supposedly, energy can be created:

  Yes, energy can be created from nowhere for a short amount of time cause of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The particle that are created are called "virtual particles" and are always created in pair because of conservation laws (charge, ...). Energy conservation can be violated for short times and this happens all the time. In the same way we can describe interactions in quantum electro dynamics. The hawking effect is based on this energy creation and destruction.
  
  Watch in google, or wikipedia for:
  Heisenberg's uncertainty prinziple
  Energy-time uncertainty
  virtual particles
• 

  BurnTheShips

  To make your apology work you resort to assertions about something which isn't some thing.

  I describe a configuration that makes the assertions in your original post moot....and the OP IS full of assertions.

  Paradox is evidence of contradiction. Contradiction is evidence of a lie.

  And there YOU GO WITH ASSERTIONS! Neither of these statements is necessarily TRUE!

  BTS
• 

  jay88

  To bastardize Rene Descartes: I think, therefore God exist.
• 

  PSacramento

  The problem is that you did not apply your premise to your premise itself!

  That isn't a probelm because we are not talking about the premise (That God created the universe), but about HOW the universe came to be.

  Its an hypothosis and before we "attack" the hypothosis we must first see if it is a valid one, no?

  See, I didn't say that everything has to have a beginning, I said the universe had one and science agrees.

  For us to speculate on God having a beginning we must first conclude that God does exist AND find out his Nature AND if that nature has evidence of a beginning.