Obviouslty everyone is at liberty to argue whatever they like on an internet forum - this is not Nazi Germany after all. What i don't get about these religion arguments, however, is why anyone would think they're going to win an argument. Those of us who believe are not going to change our minds based on the arguments put forward (well not that we'd admit it on here at least ) and i think it spectacularly unlikely that any agnostic or aetheist is going to change their view. Still, it's a free country!
This isn't exactly a theistic debate though, Chippy. It's more an argument about logic. Fan's saying that belief in god is the logical position to hold. He should be able to prove that.
Fair comment - I don't really tend to discuss my belief with tghose who don't share it- mainly on the basis that i think it's very hard, if not impossible, to justify it as being a logical position! Hey that's me though. Thought your lads were excellent today and really didn't deserve that scoreline - I don't think it's finished yet as City could still blow up. Plenty of time left for that to happen. I'm dreading the backlash on friday night!
Didn't realise that you were a Watford fan, Chippy. There's a match thread going at the moment, started by one of your fellow Hornets. Should be an interesting game. Wouldn't expect a full strength Spurs side, by any means. As for the logic of believing in god, I don't really think that it has to be logical. Personal experience may well lead you to believe in a higher power, without any other evidence or logical arguments.
Clarified what the discussion is. Its simple really I notice you go all over the shop with qurstions that in the end take away from the subject matter I just want to be clear of our starting points Also I think we need to remove god from the equation as it conjures up different images to us (based on previous discussions) so how about we use the word creator instead? Now the logical conclusion to draw for the universe is that it has a creator it is illogical to assume it came from nothing
the issue isnt about what one believes, its the mocking of what people believe by saying it is illogical, yet a) not providing a logical alternative and b) what is provided is if anything more illogical see the question is simple, say its how do you get from A to B? rather than focussing on that its the infinite arguments in between, that detract from the original question would monkeys be logically or rationally be able to type the whole works of shakespeare if given enough time? Not likely. and then you get into the whole whats enough time?
( I have no intention of getting in too deep in this thread ) but.... Your reply, whilst technically correct would mean that you refute the illogical claim of another. That more than implies that the original claim by another is wrong (according to you.) This, in turn suggests that you have an alternative answer. I'm not saying that the illogical claim that you dismiss is correct - but if you enter into a debate on the subject, I respectfully submit that you should add substance to any contribution you make.
You may be right - because, occasionally the incredible does happen - and it appears to defy logic and difficult to accept because our normal instincts want to say that 'this is wrong.' However if we say that something is right / wrong / logical or illogical we should at least provide reasoning for our position ( not necessarily providing an alternative ,) rather than just saying Yes / No / Black /White. ....... It is for this very point that I don't get too deep into many ' serious ' threads - people have a low tolerance for a proper debate and end up ( very quickly ) with words that contain the consonants F C K interspersed with the vowels U & O.
False dichotomy. You've assumed that it actually came into existence in the first place, for a start. There's nothing to suggest that all matter and energy haven't just simply existed for eternity, in differing forms, for example. You haven't even made any attempt to prove that the existence of a creator is more logical than the universe just appearing out of nothing. You've just made the claim that it is. Is this creator that you're suggesting immune to your own argument? Did he/she/it just come from nowhere, which would be illogical according to you or are you now going to come up with something else that's not in evidence to explain his/her/it's existence? The supernatural and/or a being outside of time and space, for example. These would then have to be shown to be logical.
space and time, as stated above, started at the point of creation, had a beginning if you will so is part of creation Therefore it is logical that the creator would be outside of time and space, if not then he becomes creation
They don't agree on what you're claiming they do. Nobody has any idea of what came before the Big Bang. You're confusing the beginning of all of those things with their beginning in their current state. We don't and probably can't know what came before the Big Bang, barring the probable singularity. Hilbert? Now I see where you're going with this. See, you and the American, Christian Creationist use both the same arguments and the same quotes! Hilbert's Hotel (which is what you're quoting) doesn't actually make sense, unfortunately. If a hotel with an infinite number of rooms is full, then it must contain an infinite number of guests. No new guests can arrive at the hotel, as you clearly can't have infinity+1. Sorry. By 'it', I'm going to assume that you mean the universe. You've failed to show anything that even remotely indicates a cause. So he's infinite then, something which you've already dismissed the existence of? You're assuming a creator as part of your argument for a creator. Totally circular. Even if I grant your first assumption, there's nothing which indicates your conclusion. Why couldn't the creator be a creation himself? There are more holes in this argument than Arsenal's defence, but just so that you can familiarise yourself with the argument's pros and cons, I'll give you a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalām_cosmological_argument
arsenals defence may well be leaky but its more you than me, you are trying to create straw men arguments I actually looked at the wikki link and I dont see your poin in all honesty, just another cop out
That's just wrong. Not sure where you've got that information from, to be honest. What do you think is supposed to have gone bang in the first place and how could anything have happened if time wasn't moving? Again, you're just wrong. Where are you getting this information from? The Big Bang describes the events of the earliest actions in the universe that we have any evidence for. We have no idea what happened prior to that, so it's impossible to claim that there was any creation, as you're trying to suggest, with any reliability. Appeal to authority. I haven't dismissed Hilbert. Applying his mathematical problem to this is both inaccurate and irrelevant though, despite it's constant use by your fellow creationists. I've clearly shown that I understand it and I've also shown the problem when you're trying to apply it to the problem at hand. It's a problem of comprehension, rather than any provable physical limit. We cannot comprehend the infinite, so it seems to be completely impossible. Note that you're both arguing for and against the existence of physical infinity, by the way. Why are they the only options? You've failed to demonstrate that they are. Which of those answers applies to your supposed Creator? So you're suggesting that something that's totally unexplainable is the most logical thing to believe in? That's possibly the most ridiculous thing that you've ever posted. You've actually arguing against there being a creator. You've assumed creation as part of your model. There is no evidence that anything has ever been created, so your whole hypothesis is based upon conjecture. You're also making a case of special pleading for this creator. All you are doing is saying that you don't know what happened before the Big Bang, as am I. You've added a theory about an impossible to prove creator with no detectable attributes that exists separate to everything that we know about, though. It's utterly illogical. A cop out? No, a cop out would be to say that I can't accept that we don't know how the universe started, but that I can accept a cause that has no explanation. Ridiculous.
If there is a God, he'll be pretty pissed when he finds out that I slaughter children in the name of Satan.
