I am going to reply but I am not going to let you drag me into a silly debate over your back to front logic. I'm setting this out once so that all can see how my logic is sound - in terms of what we call Logic and yours is 'Gods logic' - based on a totally unjustified a priori assumption that 'God' exists and you do this by labelling Nature as God and then pinning all sorts of attributes on it that will make it look like a sentinent being..and then the Bible and Jesus gets tacked on afterwards.
Quote:
:Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I am making none - at base. Let me save your time and mine.
|
Mystic
Quote:
|
Nonsense. You refuse to acknowledge the one you do make.
|
Which is ...what? I should love to know. If you say that it is 'That God did not do it', then your logical rules are entirely your own.
Arq
Mystic
The burden of proof is on you to support that double claim.That the universe was created and that a 'Creator' dunnit. I'm not asking you to do it as I already know what you do. Make an assumption that it had to me 'made' and that something sentinent mustha dunnit.
Arq
Quote:
|
I do not know how the universe came to be. It might be eternal. It might have had a beginning - I am postulating no premise. If you do not, then you cannot have a premise of 'the universe has a beginning' and there is no premise of a first cause and without a First Cause there in no goddunnit.
|
Mystic
Quote:
|
So what? You cannot deny that it is HERE. The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Whether it poofed into existence or through some other ongoing creative process . . . it is a magnificent and awesome creation of an inscrutable Creator. You cannot just dismiss it because of our ignorance. Whatever you believe about it . . . it is our Creator. To deny that and demand evidence of our Creator is absurd beyond belief!!!
|
It's clear that you cannot see your own illogic and I despair of getting you to see it. I do not deny that the universe is here. As you say. so what? I am making no premise about HOW it came to be here - you are - 'The Creator dunnit'.
Your evidence for that premise? "it is a magnificent and awesome creation of an inscrutable Creator" I really see that you cannot understand that this is an unjustified assumption based on your own beliefs. I know you are going to start frothing 'Shut up about 'beliefs' this is not belief it's OBVIOUS!' But that is where your logic is all your own and is nothing to do with Logic as we know it.
Arq
Quote:
Did a God do it or did it come about without a god? What's my premise?
I have none. I do not know whether a god dunnit or whether it came about naturally. I note the evidence and consider which indicates what explanation. But I make no premise to weight the evidence. No premise, no god.
|
Mystic
Quote:
|
This is the supreme nonsense. That it "came about" is sufficient evidence of a God . . . no matter what you believe its attributes are or are NOT!! The asinine notion of no premise and NOTHING as the originator is simply stupid . . . and your predilection to use the adjective "naturally" AS IF that could in ANY WAY explain the created attributes of this "nature" that you point to as the cause of this entire creation is a juvenile euphemistic tautology.
|
Again you show your faulty logic and rufusal to understand what I have SAID. You MISREPRESENT what I say. "I do not know how the universe came to be. It might be eternal. It might have had a beginning - I am postulating no premise". That is what I said. But you put this idea into my mouth: "no matter what you believe its attributes are or are NOT" I am making no claim at all about its attributes. I am not even making a claim about its origins. You are. You are making the claim and the burden of proof is on
you. In fact I have already explained the evidence that supports 'naturally' but you dismissed that. Very well, you dissmiss the conclusions of science. Then you claim to be using science to support your case.
Arq
Quote:
|
But the theists insist the universe had a cause and that cause must be a Creative intelligence. That's two unwarranted premises. I make none. I do not KNOW and not knowing implies not believing - either way.
|
Mystic
Quote:
|
Not knowing implies denying the very existence you are living!! Of course it was created .. . or it and you would not be here. What the attributes (intelligence, mindlessness, etc.) of our Creator are . . . can and will be debated . . . but NOT its EXISTENCE! What is so hard for you to grasp about this. The very demand for proof of our Creator(God) is an asinine denial of your own existence . . so STOP IT! You cannot assume the default of no Creator . . . no matter HOW ignorant you are about it!!!
|
But YOU are the one here making assumptions about this Creator - I don't even assume there is one. I don't even assume the universe was Created. YOU are the one making all those assumptions on the basis that it's 'Obvious'.
But it isn't. You are the one carried away by a sort of self - induced Theophany to make all sorts of assumptions about how the universe came to be and 'something' dunnit and you go further than that, too, but you are less than forthcoming about it.
Arq
Quote:
|
I do not say there is no god - I do not believe in one. That requires NO premise.
|
Mystic
Quote:
|
Absurd . . . that equals . . you don't believe in the Creator of your existence.
|
Yes. That's it. And until the case for such a Creator is demonstrated better than 'The universe exists so a Creator must have dunnit - which is, let me tell you known illogic, an unjustified premise and is not supporetd by any science that we have, despite your dressing up of your own beliefs in science- jargon, I shall continue not to believe. and I shall be making no assumptions by doing that -YOU are the one making assumptions. Your illogic is showing because you have forgotten the point. It is not about beliefs but about making assumptions. You say I am absurd in not assuming that that the Universe was created and there had a Creator. Whether or not, that is still not making assumptions on my part. You and I both accept that the universe exists. But You make assumptions about how and what and then try to say that's so obvious that my refusal to be persuaded is some kind of assumption. I see what you are saying but that isn't logic as we know it. It is Theist illogic.
Arq
Quote:
|
I do not believe in Biblegod. I make no premise. The theists say there is such a God, so the burden of proof is on them. They point to the Bible which exists. I say it is not believable
|
Mystic
Quote:
|
THAT is defensible and rational . . . it deals with a specific and well identified Creator. Your absurd DEFAULT "No God" is NOT!!
|
But I do not say 'No God'. Your misrepresentation of my 'No assumption about whether, how and what' shows that you really do not understand Logic.
As to the Bible, it is demonstratably unreliable. It is foolish to see it as evidence for a Creator. There is no justification for assuming a Creator as an
a priori given and we don't even know the universe was created. You assert that premise with no justification.
Arq
Quote:
|
I am then making a claim and the burden of proof is on me to support my claim. I am doing so here. If there is a premise that is that the rules of science, history, logic and reason are valid tools to come to a conclusion.
|
Mystic
Quote:
|
None of this is in dispute. But your absurd claim of no premise and demand for proof of God is pure crap!!! God is undeniable. The attributes are the ONLY things that are disputable.
|
'God' is merely a rhetorical trick on your part. You call the material universe, which is pretty undeniably existent, 'God' and then you apply all sorts of attributes to it which you assert as 'obvious'. You know as well as I do that the Bible proves nothing, your personal feelings and convictions prove nothing and to apply the term 'God' to nature is an illogical swindle.
As I say, I understand your point - The implication of a Creator by the existence of a Creation should be a given and we should reason from there.
But it isn't a given. I have explained several times the evidence that gives very good reason to entertain the possibility that there need be no creation since any origins, Cosmic, local universe or just relating to this earth, can be explained without some sort of planning intelligence being dragged into it - and your transparent ploy of calling nature 'God' as a way of wangling a conscious being into the picture is not fooling me or anyone else (1). You reject all that evidence, science and reasoning. Very well, then you reject science, evidence and reason as well as logic.
However, all
that is the premise (if we must have one) that enables me to not have the a
priori fact of a Creation forced on me and requires you - logically - to substantiate this Creation claim of yours. I make no assumptions either way, which is where we came in.
(1) other than those who are begging to be fooled - for -God
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.
