|
Author
|
Topic: If you believe in god, you have to believe in leprechauns.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Linguistic Legerdemain
The reason that it's not a very impressive proof is that "the greatest thing in the universe", in a universe that does not include all possible things, might not be very great. Certainly not as great as what "God" is commonly used to refer to. All you've done is essentially define God to be the greatest thing in the universe, but if there's nothing greater than a hot fudge sundae in the universe, you've just redefined "God" to be nothing more than a delicious dessert. Another way to put what I'm saying is, consider the set U. If we define "God" to be "the largest number in the set U", but U only contains the numbers 1, 2, and 3, then "God" isn't any more than 3, even though we might expect "God" to be considerably larger than that. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-02-2004 11:10 PM
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Re: Linguistic Legerdemain
I wonder what God would be defined as with this "proof" if God doesn't actually exist - a black hole or supernova perhaps? What is the "greatest" thing in the universe? That's another failure of the proof - it hinges on terms that are so vague as to be meaningless.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
You want tangible proof? The earth. The earth proves the earth's existence, not God's.
He can make whatever He likes happen. Like, say, the laws of physics that necessitate that evolution will occur?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by Rosie Cotton, posted 12-03-2004 2:07 PM | | Rosie Cotton has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
Message 62 of 150 (165119)
12-04-2004 11:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by Ben!
12-04-2004 12:22 AM
|
|
Brilliant! The perfect explanation why science is still the better epistomology - it's the only one that's useful in the face of solipcism.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by Ben!, posted 12-04-2004 12:22 AM | | Ben! has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
It is valid because all things do not require a cause, all effects require a cause. What things exist that are not the results of effects? If your only answer is "God", that's what he's talking about - special pleading.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
In order to have a cause you have to have time for that cause to occur. There was no time before the Big Bang. There cannot be a cause for a cause before the Big Bang. By the same logic, though, there cannot be a cause for the Big Bang, either. As that cause would have to preceed the effect (the Big Bang) but there's no time for that cause to occur. Ergo, the Big Bang is uncaused.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by robinrohan, posted 12-09-2004 2:01 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Are you telling me that nothing caused the Big Bang? Does that seem reasonable to you? Sure. Why not? It's a matter of assumption, anyway, that the Big Bang has to be caused, in the first place. For all we know, it's impossible for the Big Bang not to have occured.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by robinrohan, posted 12-09-2004 2:05 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 114 of 150 (166531)
12-09-2004 12:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by robinrohan
12-09-2004 2:17 AM
|
|
If it "occurred" then something caused it to occur. Says you, but uncaused events occur in this universe all the time. The "law" of cause and effect might simply be an illusion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by robinrohan, posted 12-09-2004 2:17 AM | | robinrohan has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 118 by lfen, posted 12-09-2004 2:21 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
What is illogical is to say that there can be such a thing as a "spontaneous event." What reason is there to assume that such an illogical event could happen? Direct observation of spontaneous, uncaused events at the quantum level. (Yes, I'm referring to atomic decay.)
That makes all the difference in the world for the First Cause idea. You're only assuming what you intend to prove - that God is the First Cause.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
I would say "uncaused event" is a misnomer. I would say that anyone who proposes that the decay of a particular atom is "really" caused, even though we've never detected any evidence that that is so, is just making up causes because they refuse to believe that something could happen without a cause. Again, circular reasoning. Your only rebuttal to an example of an uncaused effect is to assert what you're trying to defend in the first place - that all effects have causes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 123 by robinrohan, posted 12-09-2004 7:28 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
I get the feeling that some people on this forum think that the very mention of the word "God" is automatically meant to invoke all sorts of things that I have never suggested. Oh? You don't think that the term "God" might be just a little loaded? You are, after all, capitalizing it, which implies you're referring to the Judeo-Christian god, and all that goes with it... If you're so worried about it, use a different term.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 126 by robinrohan, posted 12-10-2004 12:19 AM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2