- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Fundamental Flaw in every last God/No God thread ever on this board
Posted on 9/21/17 at 7:47 pm to BamaAtl
Posted on 9/21/17 at 7:47 pm to BamaAtl
quote:Wrong """question""".
That's begging the question. If the universe needs a creator, then the creator also needs a creator
The question is, "what in science explains infinite existence?"
. . . Whether it be infinite existence of God, or infinite existence of mass.
Take your time please . . .
2
Posted on 9/21/17 at 7:47 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The question is, "what in science explains infinite existence?"
String theory.
That wasn't even a hard question. Are you -sure- you're a doctor?!
Posted on 9/21/17 at 7:55 pm to BamaAtl
quote:False
String theory.
quote:It's a message board. As you presume, so I am.
Are you -sure- you're a doctor?!
You seem to be a black female here. Is that why you ask?
This post was edited on 9/21/17 at 7:57 pm
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:03 pm to NC_Tigah
Damn
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:04 pm to bfniii
quote:
ugh. God is the uncaused cause, the prime mover. This is the kind of category mistake i was referring to. You're asking for a "cause" (temporal, spatial, serial, etc) for an uncaused thing. Philosophically speaking, if we know there are contingent things (which there are) then we know something must be necessary.
circular reasoning
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:17 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:Disagree. Both theists and atheists claim evidential support for their positions.
Agreed. Which is why agnosticism is the only evidence-based position.
My point was that there are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists as agnosticism simply describes the lack of knowledge that can or does exist to support the existence of God. Some theists don't know or know if they can know if God does exist but they believe He does. Some atheists don't know for sure and don't know if it can be known that God doesn't exist but they believe He doesn't exist. I assert that agnosticism should be a descriptor for atheism or theism and not a third option.
quote:So you would assert that you don't believe that God exists?
I'd like to. I think there is a better likelihood that aliens exist than some omniscient, omnipresent deity.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:28 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The question is, "what in science explains infinite existence?"
. . . Whether it be infinite existence of God, or infinite existence of mass.
kind of a straw-man..
"what in science explains an omnipotent god?" take your time please...
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:54 pm to BamaAtl
quote:quote:
The question is, "what in science explains infinite existence?"
String theory.
It doesn't appear that you even know what this is.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:54 pm to Gatorbait2008
quote:This and the atheist position commits the kind of category mistake i have been referring to. This is a position grounded in an empiricist perspective that "I don't have the evidence I need." Since God (metaphysical, supernatural, noumenal) cannot be known in an empiricist (physical, natural, phenomenal) sense, any empiricist claim one way or the other fails. Iow, people typically ask for physical evidence of something that is metaphysical. Therein, lies the category mistake.
So my logical conclusion was simply, "I don't know"
How we know of God through empiricism is through his activity, which is the effect that requires a cause and almost every human that has ever lived has been able to make this connection. Of course the atheist can say that these instances of God's alleged activity can be explained without appealing to God but, this is false because there are plenty of things that empirical knowledge either can't account for or will never be able to explain.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:56 pm to bmy
Well, it only takes a spark to get a fire going. And soon all those around will be warmed by its glowing. That's how it is with Gods love once you have experienced it.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:01 pm to bfniii
quote:
knowledge either can't account
God of the gaps
quote:
or will never be able to explain.
God of the gaps
Implies that if humans can't know it, then God.
A silly implication given the immense gulf between humans and whatever power/knowledge a creative being would have
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:32 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
If the universe needs a creator, then the creator also needs a creator, and the creator of the creator needs a creator, ad infinitum.
This points up the persistent futility of the god argument. So obsessed are theists with the need for a beginning and an end that they construct a tale of a creator who will eventually destroy his creation.
For most scientists, "cause and effect" and "beginning and end" are relevant only to observations made. They are descriptors, not necessarily rules. Especially, they are not assumptions.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:47 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
The question is, "what in science explains infinite existence?"
String theory.
quote:
It doesn't appear that you even know what this is.
The number of dimensions required for string theory to 'work' theorize 10 dimensions which encompass all potential worlds and timelines.
The math is weird, but some scientists stand by it. So, as he was asking for a potential scientific explanation for infinite existence....string theory explains it.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:48 pm to bfniii
quote:
Since God (metaphysical, supernatural, noumenal) cannot be known in an empiricist (physical, natural, phenomenal) sense,
So you have no evidence, despite claiming you had some?
How odd of you to actually admit it.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:50 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
The math is weird, but some scientists stand by it.
This isn't useful.
quote:
So, as he was asking for a potential scientific explanation for infinite existence....string theory explains it.
That isn't what he asked for.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:51 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
This isn't useful.
Theoretical physicists often aren't useful, but they still have math to back up their claims.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:54 pm to EthanL
quote:
If God is truly 'unknowable', what's the point in learning new things?
you do realize that science and discovery didn't just start when Christianity did, right?
empirical investigations of the natural world have been described since classical antiquity, with many, many discovers/scientists being completely secular...
your premise that the only reason we learn stuff is to "know God" makes absolutely no sense, and i'd be willing to be serious coin that this some shite you heard some speaker at a men's retreat, or by some cool new expository preacher say...
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:54 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Theoretical physicists often aren't useful, but they still have math to back up their claims.
No they don't. They have math to substantiate portions of their claims. They then fill in the rest with anything that sounds like it might be compelling. Sound familiar?
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:01 pm to Kentucker
I think someone else brought up the category error fallacy (or just category fallacy) previously, but the fallacy is committed when a person attributes a wrong characteristic to something. The Beatles song, 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' is a poetic example of this fallacy since guitars are objects that do not have the characteristic of weeping.
When discussing the existence of God, most people generally agree that the idea of God in question has the characteristic of infinite being. When you therefore ask question of who or what created an (assumed) infinite being, you are assigning an attribute of finitude that requires a cause or creator to an infinite being and thus confusing categories.
If it is assumed that God is infinite and has no beginning then it is a fallacy to ask who or what created it, even if God doesn't exist. What matters is the acceptance of the idea and characteristics of God in question and then "playing by the rules" of logic in the discussion.
When discussing the existence of God, most people generally agree that the idea of God in question has the characteristic of infinite being. When you therefore ask question of who or what created an (assumed) infinite being, you are assigning an attribute of finitude that requires a cause or creator to an infinite being and thus confusing categories.
If it is assumed that God is infinite and has no beginning then it is a fallacy to ask who or what created it, even if God doesn't exist. What matters is the acceptance of the idea and characteristics of God in question and then "playing by the rules" of logic in the discussion.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:01 pm to bfniii
quote:
How we know of God through empiricism is through his activity,
you mean like kids who die of terminal cancer?
let me guess... we can't understand God's will/timing/reason/etc. when things like that happen... b/c i was told God is just and right... how is a child, not an adult, a child, dying of cancer just? how is that right? again, don't give me some bullshite sunday school answer about the "mysterious" nature of God... backup your belief, as to how and why that situation would be just and/or right, in YOUR opinion...
Page 4 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News