which is best argument against creation (of universe)?

[Justforfun000]

If there is a reason for those laws of nature we know being the way they are, then that reason itself becomes a law, as I have already said. For instance, the tides follow patterns, once these patterns were explained by Newton, they had a "source", but that "source" was itself a (deeper) natural law. Thus it is meaningless to speak of a "source" for the laws of nature that lies outside the laws of nature.

I guess your example here (that I wish I had come up with earlier) is the closest thing to what I wanted to suggest. In this case the moon is the source of tides, and I wanted to postulate the idea of a creator as being the deeper source that all natural law originated from. But your point is that there is nothing to suggest it's necessary for them to exist, right?

[Surlethe]

Let's get something straight: if I've been rude to you, it's only because you have arrantly insulted my intelligence. I expected you, especially after the last time you blew up with this "wah wah wah why won't people meet me in the middle and treat me with respect?" bullshit, to have learned your fucking lesson; very obviously, you have not. Why the fuck should I give you any fucking slack when you, with your moronic arguments and cringingly immature attitude, have completely disabused me of any respect you had earned back from your previous concession

Insulting your intelligence is not intentional. If I'm wrong in my arguments, so be it. I'm not as well versed in many types of specifics when dealing with discussions of the limitations of faith, logic, irrationality and belief. Obviously I need to brush up a lot more on Empiricism and Parsimony for starters. But none of this justifies you or Nitram attributing motives to me I don't possess.

Where did I do this? Go ahead and find a quote.

If I'm truly way off in my arguements, it only insults MY intelligence, not yours.

Oh, really? So when you expect people to treat you and your flawed arguments with respect while making no effort to understand their arguments, they shouldn't be offended?

Anyway, I've conceded what I believe was the major thrust against my argument. If I've STILL got it wrong, let me know.

So you're backing down? Good. Make sure you understand why you were wrong, and don't repeat the mistake again. And for god's sake, don't whine about people insulting you again. Instead, ignore the insults and focus on what they're saying.

[Lord Zentei]

If there is a reason for those laws of nature we know being the way they are, then that reason itself becomes a law, as I have already said. For instance, the tides follow patterns, once these patterns were explained by Newton, they had a "source", but that "source" was itself a (deeper) natural law. Thus it is meaningless to speak of a "source" for the laws of nature that lies outside the laws of nature.

I guess your example here (that I wish I had come up with earlier) is the closest thing to what I wanted to suggest. In this case the moon is the source of tides, and I wanted to postulate the idea of a creator as being the deeper source that all natural law originated from. But your point is that there is nothing to suggest it's necessary for them to exist, right?

Such a creator would not be parsimonious. One attempts to find the simplest possible explanation for phenomenae that leads to a model that explains observations. A functioning mind is far more complex than a simple list of rules. Moreover, one can just as easily (or rather more easily) state that the mind itself requires a set of processes in order to function.

[Justforfun000]

Where did I do this? Go ahead and find a quote.

Surlethe wrote:

it's only because you have arrantly insulted my intelligence.

This is true, although I expect you could subscribe to two different notions of politeness: the idea of stylistic politeness versus actual politeness of behavior. I'd say the former is what he has in mind, the kind you associate with smarmy assholes.

Oh, really? So when you expect people to treat you and your flawed arguments with respect while making no effort to understand their arguments, they shouldn't be offended?

Of course I'm trying to understand their arguments. That I might be a little slow grasping some of them and how they apply to mine is not being deliberately offensive to them.

So you're backing down? Good. Make sure you understand why you were wrong, and don't repeat the mistake again. And for god's sake, don't whine about people insulting you again. Instead, ignore the insults and focus on what they're saying.

I think I do. I wonder if part of my problem is so many years of pseudoscience still ingrained in my head. They've probably bastardized my understanding of the definition of words, particularly ones like rationality and logic. I was probably better educated way back when I WAS in school compared to the new age teachings I read about for years afterwards. [/b]

[SirNitram]

Of course I'm trying to understand their arguments. That I might be a little slow grasping some of them and how they apply to mine is not being deliberately offensive to them.

The offense comes with your rejection of the basics of logic and screaming fit when told you have to use logic.

[Justforfun000]

The offense comes with your rejection of the basics of logic and screaming fit when told you have to use logic.

Arising from my misunderstanding of the need to apply it in that type of argument I put forth. I'm sorry. Even though I was functionally stupid in that respect, it's never my intention to insult someone's intelligence deliberately.

[SirNitram]

The offense comes with your rejection of the basics of logic and screaming fit when told you have to use logic.

Arising from my misunderstanding of the need to apply it in that type of argument I put forth. I'm sorry. Even though I was functionally stupid in that respect, it's never my intention to insult someone's intelligence deliberately.

As I have said repeatedly: Logic is expected in a forum where the word is part of the name. There is literally no excuse for you, having been here since 2002, not to be fully aware of the expectations of users.

You throw your little whine-fits about how we'll 'drive off newbies' with this kind of treatment, but you never for a nanosecond seem to ask yourself if we treat people who've not been here for years like this. We expect a minimum level of competence from you because you're not a wet behind the ears newbie.

The fact you shoved words down my throat trying to claim your 'laws need a lawmaker' crap waas reasonable is yet another insult, and if you didn't 'intend' that? Still don't care.

[Justforfun000]

The fact you shoved words down my throat trying to claim your 'laws need a lawmaker' crap waas reasonable is yet another insult, and if you didn't 'intend' that? Still don't care.

Huh? Didn't I already explain I wasn't referring to you believing that? You thought I was referring to the previous sentence in that paragraph. That's not what I was saying.

[SirNitram]

The fact you shoved words down my throat trying to claim your 'laws need a lawmaker' crap waas reasonable is yet another insult, and if you didn't 'intend' that? Still don't care.

Huh? Didn't I already explain I wasn't referring to you believing that? You thought I was referring to the previous sentence in that paragraph. That's not what I was saying.

Given that you've been childishly ignoring my posts and not bothering to denote when you reply to multiple people with the easy 'Quoting <Blah>' function, I missed the one sentence tucked into one of your posts replying to someone else entirely.

[Surlethe]

Of course I'm trying to understand their arguments. That I might be a little slow grasping some of them and how they apply to mine is not being deliberately offensive to them.

And where did I say you were being deliberately offensive?

I think I do. I wonder if part of my problem is so many years of pseudoscience still ingrained in my head. They've probably bastardized my understanding of the definition of words, particularly ones like rationality and logic. I was probably better educated way back when I WAS in school compared to the new age teachings I read about for years afterwards. [/b]

That'll do it to you. Just keep going on and learning from your mistakes.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I think I do. I wonder if part of my problem is so many years of pseudoscience still ingrained in my head. They've probably bastardized my understanding of the definition of words, particularly ones like rationality and logic. I was probably better educated way back when I WAS in school compared to the new age teachings I read about for years afterwards.

I cannot stress this enough:

I'm telling you, this slacker/drug culture of wandering around aimlessly after high school and discovering theosophy on your own has to be addressed. It's got to be more prolific than PoMobabble and a lot of kiddies are turning into deadhead leeches on their parents when they should be encouraged to further their education.

[Patrick Degan]

No, the bottom line is that those who base entire chains of argument on one massive Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy really don't have the privilege to be lecturing anybody else on what constitutes intelligence or wisdom.

1) I was referring to behaviour and the overall wisdom of gleefully seeking dissension instead of harmony. He feels it's perfectly fine because of the nature of this board. I think when the other person is NOT hostile, immune to points, and is making an effort to communicate and understand the other, it's unnecessary and unwarranted. That's my opinion on his wisdom and I stand by it.

2) I'm challenging this accusation. What I am suggesting is NOT an Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it.
My premise that laws of the universe existing as immutable and a demonstrable example of orderliness blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah...

YOU are the one saying that science is incompetent to answer questions regarding the alleged origins of universal order. YOU are the one rejecting logic as the means to examine your arguments. And YOU are the one insisting that despite a lack of evidence, the First Cause/Lawmaker idea must be accepted as valid anyway since we can't know one way or the other. That IS an Appeal to Ignorance no matter how much semantics-whoring you care to engage in you little bullshitter, and I think I am beginning to lose patience with you as several others have already done in this trainwreck of a thread.

[Wyrm]

Laws should arise from a lawmaker, otherwise there should be chaos and nothing in this world should make sense or be immutable. That is the basic argument that makes sense to me.

Okay, nobody else has pointed this out, but you set up a big, fat, honking 'special pleading' fallacy. You say that the laws of nature require a lawmaker (God), in order for the so-called "laws of nature" to not be chaotic and immutible. But the "laws" you refer to are, in fact, not laws scribed into books as regular laws are, which have lawgivers, but rather observed regularities of nature. In order for the lawmaker of which you speak to not issue chaotic, nonsensible and mutable laws, he himself would need to be regular. So in order to have regularity in the laws, you must assume regularity in the lawgiver. But what allows you to set up this argument is that there is no regularity that spotaneously arises without outside action; this applies to the lawgiver as well as the laws he gives, and so the regularity issue is not resolved.

This is one of the deep problems with the Argument from Design, which this is one form of: any argument that leads to the universe requiring some God, for whatever reason, can ultimately be turned around and applied against the God you you are arguing for just as easily. Unless you plead God out of the argument, in which case any pleading that would get God out of the argument will also get the universe out of the argument as well, and in that case, why do you need a God in the first place?

[Justforfun000]

Sir Nitram wrote:

Given that you've been childishly ignoring my posts and not bothering to denote when you reply to multiple people with the easy 'Quoting <Blah>' function, I missed the one sentence tucked into one of your posts replying to someone else entirely.

Ok, fair enough. I guess that's my fault. I still think you're far too abrasive than is necessary, but I'll admit that the argument itself was flawed on my side, and even though it grates to say I'm sorry and admit my mistake, I'd be a poor example of the maturity I'm professing for myself if I didn't.

Surlethe wrote:

And where did I say you were being deliberately offensive?

Well I got that impression from another post when you said I was putting words in people's mouths and being dishonest. That wasn't deliberate either. It's human to make mistakes and particularly so when trying to take in full context from someone based on certain posts. Obviously you did not mean that, so I withdraw the accusation.

That'll do it to you. Just keep going on and learning from your mistakes.

I'll try. Sometimes it's difficult when faced with such overwheming rancor that makes you feel like an animal backed into a corner. If I was a vulcan, it'd be easy to ignore such emotional reactions.

TithonusSyndrome wrote:

I cannot stress this enough:

TithonusSyndrome wrote:
I'm telling you, this slacker/drug culture of wandering around aimlessly after high school and discovering theosophy on your own has to be addressed. It's got to be more prolific than PoMobabble and a lot of kiddies are turning into deadhead leeches on their parents when they should be encouraged to further their education.

It looks like you're right on the money. I'll be the first to admit that my education in school down in Nova Scotia during the mid 80's was piss poor, and I hope to God it's a lot better now for the new generation. As laughable as it may sound to some of you, I was actually quite good in science. The problem is that the teaching was so disjointed that you may have been taught a great deal of useful chemistry knowledge in one semester that would give you a good pat on the head from the local pharmacist, and then completely skip by the basics of thermodynamics and end up with virtually no comprehensive physics coverage.

I've tried to make up for this through personal reading after school, but the problem with 'home' schooling is that it's difficult to prioritize it over everything else you read OR hear about for that matter and there is so much pseuodoscience out there, it's ridiculous. Mike would be practically immune to this problem, and undoubtedly so would most others here. As shown in this thread, I am certainly not. It's going to take a serious effort to sift through the fact and fancy of the mix of learning I've had over the years.
It's damn frustrating too, because I've read through every page of Mike's including the treatise on logic and how so many people think they are being logical even when they aren't. Why doesn't that stick? I've been the first one to praise this site and tell people how if you really want to know the truth about something, you go here and try your argument. And what do I do instead of listening to my own advice? Dig in my heels and try to make my argument work without listening fully to what your telling me is wrong with my words.
I can't believe I let this happen twice!

Patrick Degan wrote:

YOU are the one saying that science is incompetent to answer questions regarding the alleged origins of universal order. YOU are the one rejecting logic as the means to examine your arguments. And YOU are the one insisting that despite a lack of evidence, the First Cause/Lawmaker idea must be accepted as valid anyway since we can't know one way or the other. That IS an Appeal to Ignorance no matter how much semantics-whoring you care to engage in you little bullshitter, and I think I am beginning to lose patience with you as several others have already done in this trainwreck of a thread.

I've got it now. You've been even more patient than the rest with me. I'm sorry. I thought I was right at the time.


Wyrm wrote:

In order for the lawmaker of which you speak to not issue chaotic, nonsensible and mutable laws, he himself would need to be regular. So in order to have regularity in the laws, you must assume regularity in the lawgiver. But what allows you to set up this argument is that there is no regularity that spotaneously arises without outside action; this applies to the lawgiver as well as the laws he gives, and so the regularity issue is not resolved.

I'm not certain I get our point...let me know if this is what you mean...You're saying that by trying to pick an originating force that has to set regularity, it would have to prove itself to be regular which would then demand another originator? I'm a little unsure how you mean this.

This is one of the deep problems with the Argument from Design, which this is one form of: any argument that leads to the universe requiring some God, for whatever reason, can ultimately be turned around and applied against the God you you are arguing for just as easily. Unless you plead God out of the argument, in which case any pleading that would get God out of the argument will also get the universe out of the argument as well, and in that case, why do you need a God in the first place?

But why can't you "stop" at the part of God. Why does God need an originator? I've seen some posts here suggesting that the universe didn't necessarily "begin", it's logical to think it has always existed. So if that's the case, what enabled us to stop at the universe as the first cause? Essentially that is what you would denote it wouldn't you? because everything else can be said to have a beginning, but if the universe IS time incarnate, then it's where you would stop going 'back'. Does that make sense? I'm not certain if that's what people were suggesting or whether I'm interpreting it wrong.

[/quote]

[Patrick Degan]

And just how long do you imagine you can keep up this little rhetorical tapdance through the minefield?

But why can't you "stop" at the part of God. Why does God need an originator?

I wish I could say you can't be serious, but you really don't understand why the God concept is even more impossible than the concept of an eternal universe, do you?

I've seen some posts here suggesting that the universe didn't necessarily "begin", it's logical to think it has always existed. So if that's the case, what enabled us to stop at the universe as the first cause? Essentially that is what you would denote it wouldn't you? because everything else can be said to have a beginning, but if the universe IS time incarnate, then it's where you would stop going 'back'. Does that make sense? I'm not certain if that's what people were suggesting or whether I'm interpreting it wrong.

This concept is considered the more logical because it does not require an unnecessary term (God) to explain the universe. The problem with God is that if such a being existed in the first place to create the universe we see around us, that implies a second-order cosmos from which "he" sprang. The entire question becomes meaningless because it would be impossible to ever define an origin point and you end up in an infinite regress. Furthermore, there is not a single shred of evidence indicating any such being's intervention in the structure of reality and it's impossible to base predictions on the supposed future actions of such a being which is nebulously defined at best and for which no physical evidence exists in the first place.

[Darth Wong]

Christ, the stupidity never stops. He honestly can't figure out why the universe is a more credible first cause than a made-up deity? Here's a hint: we know that the universe exists.

[R. U. Serious]

But why can't you "stop" at the part of God. Why does God need an originator?

What do you mean by "can't stop"? You can stop there, just as you can stop at the Spaghetti Monster, or the magical turtles which created the world. The question is not what you can and can't do, the question is in what type of category those hypothesis' fall into, and for which reasons.

The difference at stopping at the Universe vs. stopping at god, is that the universe is known to exist and is observable, which puts that hypothesis into the scientific realm. Stopping at an ill-defined, unobservable, supernatural entity places the hypothesis into the cateogory of "free-for-all", irrational, assert-what-you-feel-like beliefs.

[Wyrm]

I'm not certain I get our point...let me know if this is what you mean...You're saying that by trying to pick an originating force that has to set regularity, it would have to prove itself to be regular which would then demand another originator?

Not quite. The main premise of the argument is that regularity cannot arise spontaneously from non-regularity. The argument then goes on to prove an ultimate, prime lawgiver (God) from this premise. The problem is that the logic is faulty: the logic does not show that such an ultimate, prime lawgiver exists. Rather, it shows that if a lawgiver induced this regularity on the part of the laws, then by the premise that regularity does not follow from non-regularity means that lawgiver must himself be regular, and therefore this regularity in the lawgiver cannot be spontaneous either and requires an origin, again as per the main premise. The logic folds back on and destroys the lawgiver as the origin of the regularity; the argument folds back on and destroys itself.

The argument of the first mover also folds back on and destroys itself similarly. The logic that leads you to believe that the first mover is God turns back on itself and makes you ask, "Who moves God?" Indeed, the proper application of the first mover logic leads you to the conclusion that there is no first mover — either the chain of cause and effect is infinite, or nothing moves at all (which it obviously is not the case). If you then assume that the chain cannot be infinite, yet things move, then you have forced yourself into a contradiction, not to a conclusion that there is a God.

But why can't you "stop" at the part of God. Why does God need an originator?

And why shouldn't I ask that question? Why should I stop at God, unless you give me a good reason to do so? Indeed, if applying the same logic to God causes the argument from design to fold back on and destroy itself, why should I believe the argument in the first place? You're arguing that "God" is exempt from the logic because otherwise the arguments from design/first cause/what-the-fuck-ever-it's-all-the-same-argument-dressed-in-different-clothes destroy themselves. Boo hoo. Take your 'special pleading' fallacies back to the sandbox where they belong.

I've seen some posts here suggesting that the universe didn't necessarily "begin", it's logical to think it has always existed. So if that's the case, what enabled us to stop at the universe as the first cause? Essentially that is what you would denote it wouldn't you? because everything else can be said to have a beginning, but if the universe IS time incarnate, then it's where you would stop going 'back'. Does that make sense?

No, because this is not what the logic tells you. When the premise is carried to its logical conclusion, it does NOT name the universe as the first cause of everything; it says that there's no such thing as a first cause — the cause-and-effect chains have no first causes, even in God. In order to have God as the first cause, the premise (which the argument is based on) must be faulty. Oops.

[Justforfun000]

Ok. From the last few posts, I think I fully understand now. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be so dense, but these are all arguments you are all very familiar with, and also have the fallacies they evoke right at the tip of your tongue. I have been on this board a long time, this is true, but look at my post count and you can estimate how much actual time I've been actually involving myself. Most threads I've followed weren't dealing with such in depth science vs. God subjects either, so it's still 'new' to me in many ways, and like I said I guess pseudoscience is notriously difficult to eradicate from someone's head when it's all mixed up with the real thing.

At the very least, maybe many others who would have been thinking along the same lines as myself will see this spelled out for them. I'm sure there's no shortage of them in the southern states...