A theism, a theism, my kingdom for a theism - Page 30

chappy · 2013-05-05, 17:43

back to pedanticism

kladner · 2013-05-05, 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by chappy

back to pedanticism

What controversy? Everyone who is anyone knows there's turtles and elephants down there somewhere.

jasong · 2013-05-08, 14:57

If I may go slightly off-topic, and maybe this was covered, but...

Saying that assuming a Creator means you have to assume a Creator for the Creator is fallacious because even if you assume there's no God, there's also the problem of what happened at the beginning. What was around before the Big Bang, and what was around before that, and before that, and before that, and onward down the rabbit hole. We exist, so either time is circular or truly eternal. And then there's the possibility that there are one or more universes that can contain time rather than be ruled by it.

As it's been said, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.(or whatever a male goose is called)

chalsall · 2013-05-08, 19:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasong

Saying that assuming a Creator means you have to assume a Creator for the Creator is fallacious because even if you assume there's no God, there's also the problem of what happened at the beginning. What was around before the Big Bang, and what was around before that, and before that, and before that, and onward down the rabbit hole.

No rabbit hole.

It is possible we're dealing with a cyclic "big bang". The Universe explodes from a singularity, expands for a few hundred billion years. Chemicals come together to form intelligent life (as they have been demonstrated to do). And then the Universe contracts again. And then the cycle repeats.

Multiple universes are also possible, using the same technique.

Are you familiar with the Anthropic principle?

At the end of the day (Universe), we know we cannot know.

But the Scientific Method seems to give better answers (read: more reproducible in their predictions) than believing that some white guy with flowing hair sent his son down to Earth to die on our behalf.

It is fairly reasonable to assume that your answers to these unanswerable questions are as incorrect as ours.

davar55 · 2013-05-08, 19:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

...
It is fairly reasonable to assume that your answers to these unanswerable questions are as incorrect as ours.

I presume, perhaps incorrectly, that you mean unanswerable at this
time, not utterly unanswerable?

chalsall · 2013-05-08, 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

I presume, perhaps incorrectly, that you mean unanswerable at this time, not utterly unanswerable?

What is the last digit of pi?

davar55 · 2013-05-08, 19:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

What is the last digit of pi?

That is not an unanswerable question. AYK the proof of pi's
transcendentalism provides the answer that there is no last
digit, which inva;idates the form of the question. And you used
that example earlier here. The analogy to metaphysical or
cosmoloogical questions is a weak one, since ATT we can
strongly prove things in math whereas science and philosophy
rely on logic and observation so that theiir "proofs" are of a
somewhat different kind from those in math.

chalsall · 2013-05-08, 19:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

That is not an unanswerable question. AYK the proof of pi's
transcendentalism provides the answer that there is no last
digit, which inva;idates the form of the question.

It doesn't "inva;idates" [sic] the question.

The correct answer is the question cannot be answered as asked.

davar55 · 2013-05-08, 20:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

It doesn't "inva;idates" [sic] the question.

The correct answer is the question cannot be answered as asked.

I said "form of the question". And perhaps the cosmological and
metaphysical questions that "can't be answered" are just being
wrongly stated, and can be (perhaps eventually) answered when
better proposed.

chalsall · 2013-05-08, 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

I said "form of the question". And perhaps the cosmological and
metaphysical questions that "can't be answered" are just being
wrongly stated, and can be (perhaps eventually) answered when
better proposed.

With all due respect, care to restate the questions (better proposed) so they might be answerable?

davar55 · 2013-05-08, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

With all due respect, care to restate the questions (better proposed) so they might be answerable?

Well, for example, instead of asking "Does a god exist?", preface that
question with several properties that define such a being, such as
omniscience or omnipotence, so that when the questioner refers to
a god, he/she has already included contradictions in its definition.
That leads to a negative answer.

2013-05-05, 17:43	#320
chappy "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 13·89 Posts	back to pedanticism Attached Thumbnails

2013-05-08, 14:57	#322
jasong "Jason Goatcher" Mar 2005 3·7·167 Posts	If I may go slightly off-topic, and maybe this was covered, but... Saying that assuming a Creator means you have to assume a Creator for the Creator is fallacious because even if you assume there's no God, there's also the problem of what happened at the beginning. What was around before the Big Bang, and what was around before that, and before that, and before that, and onward down the rabbit hole. We exist, so either time is circular or truly eternal. And then there's the possibility that there are one or more universes that can contain time rather than be ruled by it. As it's been said, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.(or whatever a male goose is called)