Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-21-2011, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
25,826 posts, read 20,657,184 times
Reputation: 14818

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Creationism is not religion. It's possible to believe in a creator without believing in a particular deity.
Of course it is. How can you even try to agrue that?
How is anything that ascribes creation to a divine being not religion?

That's just silly.


"Georgetown University theology professor John F. Haught said that while intelligent-design proponents do not explicitly identify God as the creator of life, the concept is "essentially a religious proposition.""


Theologian says intelligent design is religion - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-21-2011, 12:50 PM
 
6,484 posts, read 6,606,150 times
Reputation: 1275
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
Of course it is. How can you even try to agrue that?
How is anything that ascribes creation to a divine being not religion?

That's just silly.


"Georgetown University theology professor John F. Haught said that while intelligent-design proponents do not explicitly identify God as the creator of life, the concept is "essentially a religious proposition.""


Theologian says intelligent design is religion - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com
You should take a hard look at the cosmological argument, as I've argued on this thread numerous times. The cosmological argument argues for the existence of God as Creator, but does not say who/what God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2011, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Long Beach, CA
195 posts, read 186,252 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
What argument have I proposed that is "circular"? Do you even really know what that means?
Circular logic is defined as an argument that hinges on the assumption that it is correct.

The fact that you say causation is accepted thus god is the cause so creationism should be accepted (paraphrased of course).... is circular logic because it hinges on the assumption of God being the cause rather than proving he is.

You can prove Causation, that is to say there is a cause.... but you make an assertion as to what that cause is and by definition such assertions are fallacious and thus not logical arguments because an Assertion is a presentation of something as fact without supporting it as such.

Short version.... your logic is circular because it hinges on an assertion as to the cuase and then uses that to attempt to apply causation as proof, but since the basis of that premise hinges on an assumption you are already correct rather than proving the claim... it is circular logic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2011, 12:55 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,001,245 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
No, but several have suggested repeatedly that creationism get equal play.
Considering other theories are taught in school, like the big bang theory, I've got no problem with this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2011, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,051,059 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
The universe exists. Why?
For the same exact reason you believe that God exists. But ultimately, science is not about "why." It is about "how."

After all, the ultimate answer to "why" boils down simply to "because."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Causality shows us that everything that exists was caused by something else to exist.
But of course, if you are correct then this is not true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
This is difficult to do when the ones that publish those journals won't let anyone in that doesn't agree with them. However, the cosmological argument is an old one and has been around since before the scientific model.
Ignoring the absurd and puerile whine about journals, the cosmological argument has always failed, in all its flavors, and for the same reason. It is internally contradictory and self refuting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Causality is an accepted thing among most scientists today.
Sadly, causality is rejected as false by every version of the cosmological argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Again...experiments routinely conclude that causality exists. Thus, creationism should be widely accepted: The universe exists, so it was caused.
Actually... not even close. The universe is not an entity. It does not exist in the same sense that a planet or a molecule exists. While each of them needs to be caused, the universe does not.

Extending that thought, if God exists (and is an entity) then according to the law of causality, God must have a cause. A universe, on the other hand, doesn't need to have a cause since it is not an entity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2011, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Hillsboro, OR
2,200 posts, read 4,413,373 times
Reputation: 1386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
What argument have I proposed that is "circular"? Do you even really know what that means?
Perhaps you need to take a course in Logic. See what Damp said^

Quote:
I have no problem believing God could work by evolution if he wanted to. There is not evidence that He did, though. The Genesis account contradicts it, as does natural evidence, such as the fossil record.
So now you are using two pieces of evidence that directly contradict each other in order to try to prove something wrong even though neither one does?

Why do you even try to enter arguments that are way above your head?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2011, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Long Beach, CA
195 posts, read 186,252 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
no. Logically there has to be a cause bigger than the things that exist. At some point there had to be an uncaused cause.
That is not actually accurate, end result of a reaction can in fact exceed the nature of its cause. The cause of an explosive reaction is often a single thermal or electric spark yet the yield that spark generates due to its reaction far exceeds the force of the causal factor... and without that causal factor the ignition material would have remained inert.

Cause does not have to exceed result... look at an explosion or avalanche cor example. In the case of an Avalanche the cause could be as small as a single stone rolling and colliding with other loose stones or accumulating snow as it rolls and thus causing increasing returns as it continues to fall and dislodge other objects. The same end result can be caused by a loud noise if the acoustics and stability are of the right circumstance, or a explosion or collapse of structure could cause the same thing. For an explosion if you have an inert body of fuel it does not matter if it was a small explosion that set it off, a smoldering ember, and open flame, or even a single electric spark.... the result of the detonation of that fuel remains constant regardless of the ignition source (Which would be the cause of said detonation)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2011, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,051,059 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
no. Logically there has to be a cause bigger than the things that exist. At some point there had to be an uncaused cause.
See? There you go. You have just asserted that the law of causality is false. because, by definition, an "uncaused cause" violates that law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
The rocket scientists on here that suggest the universe is eternal by the same logic haven't come to grips with the basic idea that we know the universe had a beginning by virtue of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the existence of time (how do you pass an infinite amount of time to get to now?).
You are whistling past the graveyard.

1) The 2nd Law of Thermo is completely and perfectly conformable to an eternal universe, as has been repeatedly shown. Why do you ignore that demonstration without challenge?

2) You don't need an infinite amount of time "to get to now." You don't need any time at all. It is already now. It is always now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2011, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Hillsboro, OR
2,200 posts, read 4,413,373 times
Reputation: 1386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle View Post
That is not actually accurate, end result of a reaction can in fact exceed the nature of its cause. The cause of an explosive reaction is often a single thermal or electric spark yet the yield that spark generates due to its reaction far exceeds the force of the causal factor... and without that causal factor the ignition material would have remained inert.

Cause does not have to exceed result... look at an explosion or avalanche cor example. In the case of an Avalanche the cause could be as small as a single stone rolling and colliding with other loose stones or accumulating snow as it rolls and thus causing increasing returns as it continues to fall and dislodge other objects. The same end result can be caused by a loud noise if the acoustics and stability are of the right circumstance, or a explosion or collapse of structure could cause the same thing. For an explosion if you have an inert body of fuel it does not matter if it was a small explosion that set it off, a smoldering ember, and open flame, or even a single electric spark.... the result of the detonation of that fuel remains constant regardless of the ignition source (Which would be the cause of said detonation)
Great post- I completely missed that point that they brought up!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2011, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,051,059 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
God is not a "thing".
You have asserted that God exists. If God exists, then God is most certainly a "thing."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
And the issue of infinite regression of causality would dictate that there is a beginning cause at some point.
Excuse me? If there is a beginning cause, then there wasn't an infinite regression at all.

Do you not know what "infinite" means?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Correction: I've repeatedly ignored stupid assertions (not demonstrations) that my "logical deduction" is contradictory. You and the others have yet to demonstrate it.
You're half right. You have ignored it.

You have no choice, since you have no actual response.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:35 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top