Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I'll take that as a "No, Calvinist, I don't understand what an antonymic pair is, nor do I want to. I'll just remain ignorant and try to deflect the argument...."
I'm the one arguing from a logical conclusion here. The fact that I agree with one of the 2 sides of the antonymic pair is to be expected. You also agree with one of them. Now...if we disprove one, the other is correct by default--as there are no other possibilities.
If you want to join the fun, feel free. If you just want to continue arguing from emotion, so be it. Your type generally doesn't like logic.
You don't have to try too hard. Just handle a simple argument...
Let us look at what you like to call "logical proof":
"I believe that there was a personal creator--meaning that the creator that caused the universe was a person, or a being. If I can disprove one side of the pair, the other is by default true--unless you can give me a reasonable alternative."
Okay, so your belief is your "logical proof", that there was (is?) a creator that is a person. Now prove it.
You don't have to try too hard. Just handle a simple argument...
Let us look at what you like to call "logical proof":
"I believe that there was a personal creator--meaning that the creator that caused the universe was a person, or a being. If I can disprove one side of the pair, the other is by default true--unless you can give me a reasonable alternative."
Okay, so your belief is your "logical proof", that there was (is?) a creator that is a person. Now prove it.
My proof is not my belief...but again, I don't expect you to actually look at what I've said. It's much easier to just pose a strawman, isn't it?
LOL! No question about that. You're absolutely right Brian, both are extremely strange, and very tough stuff to understand. But are they too weird? I don't think so. I think they're very interesting scientific subjects which are related to the cosmos. They aren't necessarily any weirder than subjects like multi-dimensional string theory, colliding branes, multiverses, whether the universe is cyclic or not, etc.
I agree, dark matter is really weird, but there is observational evidence to support it, but there are also other theories that explain such behaviors.
Dark energy is hypothetical, but there's evidence supporting that it makes up 71.3% to 72.8% of the universe. It helps explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating. It could be that it's an integrated property of space itself, in a similar way that time is an integrated part of space in the universe (space-time).
I'd still say it'd be hard and complex to fit it in with the topic of the thread though and more suitable for a separate thread. The same could be said for Calvinist's continual sidetracking the thread with unrelated philosophical questions like asking if people know the antonymic pair concept. Calvinist would do better to start a separate thread although it doesn't seem like a subject for a science and technology forum. That's just my opinion though.
I guess the Bang was caused by dark energy, and that the initial acceleration was so fast due to the compactness of said dark energy? Whatever happened, had to have a beginning, that is, certain ingredients had to be there. I used think there were Big Crunches, and that it the process had to repeat, over and over. But after I learned about this weird stuff called Dark Energy and Dark Matter, that kind of threw a wrench into my thinking. This Dark stuff is in fact, increasing the speed at which things are moving, and so I now have no ideawhat to think. We were talking a bit about multiple universes, so the only thing I can think of would be that they collide.
I'd suggest you go do some homework on causation. You have no clue what you're talking about and it's evident.
I see, it's the "I'm arguing on a level too rarified to provide counterarguments" exit today. As I may have said in another thread, you dressed up the cosmological argument for a creator in fancier verbiage and gave it another go.
If I have no clue, it should be child's play for an intellect such as yours to counter post 109.
I am beginning to have serious doubts about what kind of logic gets taught in seminaries.
You too? Do you need an explanation of what an antonymic pair is, too?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.