OT: Creationism--a myth or retardation?

[Scott R. Brown]

How do you get from "has a cause" to "was created". The implicit assumption here being that all causes require a sentient agent.

You are assuming your proof in the premise itself (see below).

Cause creates effect. Without cause there is no effect. Therefore cause creates the effect. If the effect is created absent a cause there has been no demonstration anywhere of this occurring, therefore it is reasonable to accept all effects are created by their attendant causes.

Basically all of your syllogisms are some variation of begging the question; you use the proposition to be proved such as "personhood requires a creator" as the premise from which you "prove" it.

The argument is thus:

1)

Cause and effect occurs.

Effects follow causes.

Therefore, causes create effects!

2)

All effects have causes.

Personhood is an effect.

Therefore, personhood has a cause!

3)

Mind creates.

That which creates, creates a thing.

The thing that is created is an effect.

All things/effects have causes.

Mind creates things.

Personhood is a thing.

Therefore, mind creates personhood!

This is not begging the question.

Your premise above, stripped of all obfuscating wordiness is "It is impossible for something to come from nothing."

Immediately followed by your assertion that "nothing/nothingness" is impossible.

You invalidate your own premise.

No, you did not follow the argument.

Since it is impossible for something to come from nothing, something comes from something, but not "nothing" because "nothing" cannot occur! Something and nothing merely describe a relationship. Nothing is merely "Not-THAT-something. It is not absent all substance and/or form. For once we distinguish between "nothing" from something, that "nothing" becomes a separate set and therefore is merely something we call "nothing". But is not non-existence.

"Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore there must be a creator."

But if there is no such thing as "nothing" in the first place, if I agree to the central of your many implicit assumptions that a cause requires a sentient agent then the argument that a creator must exist because something cannot come from nothing is superfluous.

Your arguments would have gotten you laughed out of community college Intro to Logic.

As would your incompetent rebuttal.

You couldn't follow the argument! I used syllogisms to demonstrate my conclusions. My assumptions may be incorrect however you have not demonstrated:

1) Effects do not follow causes.
2) Some effects do not have causes.
3) Personhood does not exist.
4) Mind does not create.
5) The which is created is not an effect.

If you automatically accept anyone's assumptions/conclusions there would never be a need for any argument at anytime!

[Syn7]

Don't get too excited!

The implication of the statement was that an agnostic is truly wised compared to an atheist, who is ignorant of his own faith and the limits of reasoning!



It is only unknowable to those who don't look.

It is like saying an orange does not have any taste at all, while refusing to taste one. You don't know the taste of an orange until you find one and eat it.

If a person wants to know if God exists, the first thing to do is to look for him/her/it and then have the direct experience for themselves. The problem is, it is easier to taste an orange than it is to find God. We call the people who have found God mystics and their reports are very similar across cultures and historical time periods, after accounting for cultural and intellectual influences.


The virgin birth and son of God motif comes from Mithraism, a popular Persian religion with the Roman soldiers.

I was kidding about the witness sh1t, I'm sure you got that.

As far as god and personal revelation, I have no interest in going there. I have no problem with people believing whatever as long as it doesn't affect me. Unfortunately, it does affect me and I find it more than annoying. Nothing I can't get over tho.

The virgin birth can actually be found in many religions coming from the general area around the gulf and med.

I call myself agnostic because I don't believe I can prove it one way or the other. I do have beliefs tho, most rational some irrational. I do believe there is much more than meets the eye in life but it is all personal and nothing I can show. I don't think of my life energy as a spiritual thing, to me it's all physics. Physics is my philosophy and it is my science. Theoretical physics is fun, but it is theoretical and needs to be looked at objectively. Use the subjective mind to create, use the objective mind to verify and add perspective. It's a unique ability that physicists need if they truly want to make a mark in theoretical physics.

[Syn7]

Exactly, knowledge of God comes from direct experience which is not subject to logical proof or defense.

It is impossible to demonstrate the taste of an orange through logical discourse. Either you tasted one or you didn't!

The same can be said for any experience. You can even take it further and suggest that experience IS the purpose of life. And it goes on and on and on......

[Syn7]

Just to knit-pick. This itself is a truth statement requiring proof. By what evidence is there to say that god, should he/she/it exist, is incomprehensible? Not saying you personally, I don't know you. But a lot of people take this stance because they think in it they are relinquishing any source of potential responsibility, that its the logical neutral ground. Its not. It is making a claim.

but not to be confused with the statement that "the existence of god is unknowable."

incomprehensible suggests there is an answer, we just can't grasp it. Unknowable means we have no way of knowing. That could change, but of course we don't know how. lol

There is a difference. Only one is agnostic.


Agnostic is not the perfect term to describe how I think and feel, but it's the only one that comes anywhere close. I could always make up a word to describe me perfectly if that makes anyone feel better? I don't like to say agnostic tho, it automatically pigeon holes me and is so open to interpretation considering the fact that not everyone agrees on the terminology.

[Scott R. Brown]

The same can be said for any experience. You can even take it further and suggest that experience IS the purpose of life. And it goes on and on and on......

All of this only matters when we choose to make it matter. How we choose to view life will influence the quality of our experiences. It then will only matter to each individual if they are not happy with the quality of their experiences and cannot recognize that the quality is determined by how they choose to view life. If a person is unhappy with their experiences, and then change the view/perspective.

Inherently, all views may be reduced to unprovable assumptions. Even the most rational views may be reduced to unprovable/unsupportable assumptions. For even to accept the determinations of reason one must have faith in their ability to reason without error and that reason is sufficient to answer all their questions.

All reason is, is the ability to recognize repeating and repeatable patterns allowing the reasoner to accurately predict effects from causes.

And this is predicated upon a mind that objectively separates cause from effect.

Understanding all of this changes life to nothing more than a game to be played, hopefully, for enjoyment, or as you said, for the experience of it.

If a person is happy being a fundamentalist anything then good for them. If another is happy being an atheist then good for them. The same for any other world view as long as it generally does no harm to others.

I am with you though once it begins to interfere with my own freedom I will react accordingly.

[Scott R. Brown]

I think the best we can say is knowledge of God is not rationally provable to another. It is a knowing that must be directly experienced, and similar to my orange example, I cannot prove to anyone, using rational argument, what an orange tastes like or what the sunset looks like. They must see and taste for themselves.

Once they have the direct experience no one can take that direct knowing away from them using rational argument. They can't give it to you and you cannot take from them, but some people can point others towards where to find these experiences for themselves.

The problem with some rationalists is they believe that reason can inform them on all knowledge, and they do not recognize that their own life experience demonstrates to them, on a daily basis, that some kinds of knowledge, that they rely upon every day., is not supported by reason, but by direct experience.

Reason has its limits and we cannot apply reason to areas of knowledge for which it is not suited.

[Syn7]

I can live with most of that. But then I can live with "everything is subjective, so fukc it."

Seriously tho, I agree, not everything can be measured by the same standard. That just isn't fair. Those who don't understand that don't want to understand that.

Everything is built on a foundation of assumption at some point. EVERYTHING. We have to have some faith that we are on the right path and push on. When one is wrong, that's okay. It doesn't become shameful until they deny evidence to placate the ego, to hang on to a theory just to avoid being wrong. And some are so fukced up that they can't fathom being wrong. Sad, but true.

[wenshu]

Cause creates effect. Without cause there is no effect. Therefore cause creates the effect. If the effect is created absent a cause there has been no demonstration anywhere of this occurring, therefore it is reasonable to accept all effects are created by their attendant causes.

The argument is thus:

1)

Cause and effect occurs.

Effects follow causes.

Therefore, causes create effects!

2)

All effects have causes.

Personhood is an effect.

Therefore, personhood has a cause!

3)

Mind creates.

That which creates, creates a thing.

The thing that is created is an effect.

All things/effects have causes.

Mind creates things.

Personhood is a thing.

Therefore, mind creates personhood!

This is not begging the question.

No, you did not follow the argument.

Since it is impossible for something to come from nothing, something comes from something, but not "nothing" because "nothing" cannot occur! Something and nothing merely describe a relationship. Nothing is merely "Not-THAT-something. It is not absent all substance and/or form. For once we distinguish between "nothing" from something, that "nothing" becomes a separate set and therefore is merely something we call "nothing". But is not non-existence.


1) Effects do not follow causes.
2) Some effects do not have causes.
3) Personhood does not exist.
4) Mind does not create.
5) The which is created is not an effect.

What, are you trying to get laughed out of the parking lot too?

[wenshu]

lol. No offence tho...

relax.............

Who's not relaxed brah?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Disagreeing with organized religion does not validate or invalidate your faith. You seem like you really want to hammer home that you are different. Are you that worried we think you're a card carrying RC soldier? Don't worry, I get it. You did research and made a more informed choice. Congrats. Why do you assume I didn't? Because we have made different conclusions and anyone who is rational with the facts would have come to what you came to? Oh no wait, that would be an assumption on my part.

I'll look at the link, but I will get turned off if it is an argument. I just want facts, I will do the interpretation thankyouverymuch.

I think that you may have misunderstood, I was addressing the "copycat" issue when I was referring to the research I have done and stating that the research helped, in part, to strengthen my faith.
I am a catholic, but not a roman catholic ( yes there are different types of catholic and I am what is usually called an "old catholic").

I have no issues with you or anyone doing the same research that I have done, even using the exact same sources and still arriving at different conclusions.
We all go in with preconceived notions and biases that will influence our final decision, and I am no different.
I fully accept that the conclusion I reached may have been influenced by a deep rooted desire for it to be so.
I just hope that everyone is as "open minded" in admitting that very thing to themselves also.

[Scott R. Brown]

What, are you trying to get laughed out of the parking lot too?

Nice reasoned argument!

[David Jamieson]

Just to knit-pick. This itself is a truth statement requiring proof. By what evidence is there to say that god, should he/she/it exist, is incomprehensible? Not saying you personally, I don't know you. But a lot of people take this stance because they think in it they are relinquishing any source of potential responsibility, that its the logical neutral ground. Its not. It is making a claim.

I believe in God.
I believe I am unable to comprehend God on any humanistic level.

I cannot comprehend the true vastness of the universe.
I can see the world around me, and I can guess that all of it, including the vastness of the universe and me within it are components of God as I understand and at the same time do not understand.

I shirk nothing in that respect. I don't want to prove and don't think I'm obliged to prove my point of view to anyone. I'm not selling it to anyone and I'm not in conflict in regards to what I believe God to be.

I do claim there is a god. I am unconcerned if others share that with me or not. It doesn't matter. I would help an atheist on the side of the road the same as I would help a fundamentalist christian. I don't see belief or the lack of it as any sort of necessary component to functioning in society. It's not. It's private belief.

To me, what is foolish is trying to convince others of something like god. It's personal, it cannot be quantified and ergo there is nothing to discuss beyond yes, or no. After that, it's just words. Like this.

[Scott R. Brown]

I believe in God.
I believe I am unable to comprehend God on any humanistic level.

I cannot comprehend the true vastness of the universe.
I can see the world around me, and I can guess that all of it, including the vastness of the universe and me within it are components of God as I understand and at the same time do not understand.

I shirk nothing in that respect. I don't want to prove and don't think I'm obliged to prove my point of view to anyone. I'm not selling it to anyone and I'm not in conflict in regards to what I believe God to be.

I do claim there is a god. I am unconcerned if others share that with me or not. It doesn't matter. I would help an atheist on the side of the road the same as I would help a fundamentalist christian. I don't see belief or the lack of it as any sort of necessary component to functioning in society. It's not. It's private belief.

To me, what is foolish is trying to convince others of something like god. It's personal, it cannot be quantified and ergo there is nothing to discuss beyond yes, or no. After that, it's just words. Like this.

You are killing this thread!!!!

[Syn7]

I think that you may have misunderstood, I was addressing the "copycat" issue when I was referring to the research I have done and stating that the research helped, in part, to strengthen my faith.
I am a catholic, but not a roman catholic ( yes there are different types of catholic and I am what is usually called an "old catholic").

I have no issues with you or anyone doing the same research that I have done, even using the exact same sources and still arriving at different conclusions.
We all go in with preconceived notions and biases that will influence our final decision, and I am no different.
I fully accept that the conclusion I reached may have been influenced by a deep rooted desire for it to be so.
I just hope that everyone is as "open minded" in admitting that very thing to themselves also.

I have no problem with that.

[David Jamieson]

I will say this, When it comes to the apocalyptic religions of Abraham, I like My Christians to be Pauline in nature, I like my Jews to be Reform and I like my Muslims to be moderate. For all others, again, I prefer the moderates.

Convictions kill truth. I think we should always be in a state of wonder especially in regards to the unknown such as god is.