|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: taiji2's complaint | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
subbie writes: I think that answer presumes a lot. Yes, it does. I was just trying to give a direct general answer to the heart of his question.
If we assume he's referring specifically to the argument over creationism and evolution, assuming that some deity is responsible for natural laws wouldn't change the argument one whit. I totally agree that the arguments themselves wouldn't change. And from there, we have 2 main schools of context that are easily confused: 1. This is what I think taiji2 is thinking about in his mind, and this is the context I answered: The argument was over whether or not God exists, and that 'natural laws' somehow mean that God does not exist (this doesn't actually follow... but, whatever, I still think this is what taiji2 intended).In this context, the arguments remain the same, but their conclusions (that God does not exist) are wrong. I agree that this context does not stem from the exact wording that taiji2 used. But I think it's obvious if you follow his stream of thought that this is the context he was trying to get at. 2. This is what I think is actually more mainstream and where the confusion in taiji2's question is stemming from: The arguments about 'natural laws' don't care about God's existence. Therefore, if the laws do actually come from a God, then it doesn't matter... the arguments for the laws remain the same, and their conclusions (that these laws describe our universe and function as we think they do...) remain the same.This is what you're talking about, and this is where my thoughts actually land as well. But I thought it best to attempt an answer for the context I thought taiji2 was trying for instead of confusing it with this one. Really, only taiji2 can say what it is he actually meant with his question, though.My follow up question (asking taiji2 how we should further the discussion) was intended to begin sorting through this confusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I confess to not having followed this conversation as closely as I might. Therefore, it's quite possible that your understanding of the point that taiji2 was trying to make is superior to mine. I applaud your effort to try to make sense out of the dog's breakfast of an argument taiji2 is presenting. We'll see if anything coherent emerges, but I don't expect much.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3492 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes:
As to changing threads, I can think of no better thread title than taiji2's complaintringo writes: Then think harder. Ringo,I have been often chastised for not staying on topic, hence my comment above. But you are right of course. I should think harder. Therefore, please direct me to a thread on the forum where the idea of creation bringing something from nothing is debated. I have my own understanding of that idea in context of the Taoist cosmology. The christian idea of day one of creation has similarities. I am not interested in debating the christian day five thing about the origin of life at this time. Point me in the right direction and I will go there and try to stay on topic.
taiji2 writes:
The question you people here need to chew on is that if the natural laws in fact are a creation of god (or what ever term you wish to use), where does that leave your arguments?ringo writes: I'll gladly tell you where my arguments are if you'll discuss a bloody topic.The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth. The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind. The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person. The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3492 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
Thank you for a rare honest answer from this forum. Dr. Adequate writes: You can't even thank me without being snide. You have in fact been answered on this forum in a way that has been completely honest, not to say forthright. Perhaps I should have said straight forward answer rather than honest answer. Poor choice of words. I apologize. Snideness was not intended but I see how you could see it implied from my word choice.
Should I decide to return and reengage the debate, a good place to begin will be at the beginning. Dr. Adequate writes: Where would that be, then? I have asked advice of ringo on where I can go and not be speaking off-topic.
Dr. Adequate writes: If we don't know anything about what's before the Big Bang, then are we not obliged to start at the Big Bang? In my opinion, no. This is a debate on creation. Creation speaks of something coming from nothing. Debate on that nothingness and how something came from it is on-topic in my opinion.The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth. The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind. The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person. The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Creation speaks of something coming from nothing. Debate on that nothingness and how something came from it is on-topic in my opinion. It may be on-topic, but can we meaningfully speak about a subject on which we have no evidence? If we can't look back before the Big Bang, then we can't see if there was nothing, or if there was something, or indeed if there was a time before the Big Bang at all (many physicists seem to think there wasn't, just as (by analogy) there is no point due north of the North Pole). So what would we be talking about? --- P.S: This thread might interest you. EvC Forum: The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
taiji2 writes:
I don't know of a specific thread about "creation from nothing". If there is one, it's probably mostly about Christian ideas. If you want to discuss Taoist ideas, you're probably better off proposing a new topic
Therefore, please direct me to a thread on the forum where the idea of creation bringing something from nothing is debated. I have my own understanding of that idea in context of the Taoist cosmology. The christian idea of day one of creation has similarities. I am not interested in debating the christian day five thing about the origin of life at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
This is a debate on creation. Creation speaks of something coming from nothing. Debate on that nothingness and how something came from it is on-topic in my opinion. We have no evidence for a nothingness, so how can we debate it? Also, the creation of lightning is something from something. The creation of planets and stars is something from something. Creation, as a word, in no way implies something from nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Past threads dealing at least in part with the creation of the universe from nothing:
Does the universe have total net energy of zero? (open)
Before Big Bang God or Singularity (closed)
Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory (closed)
The Kalam cosmological argument (open) I think these threads are all closed. [ Two of the threads are still open. --Admin ] Edited by Admin, : Make the thread names into links, annotate which are open.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
I have heard other students told "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me". The actual quote is: There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again. -George Bush, jnrThe above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Taiji2 writes: The purpose of a debate is NOT to win. Actually, in geology, the purpose of a debate is to describe the best model of deposition. All best models of what we found in reality ;economic minerals, underground, works on geology. Not religious stuff.. That's why flood deposits aren't even contemplated by any mining companies. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024