-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
The origin of the universe cannot be determined scientifically
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I've been a mod for several years.
I never wear my mod hat during discussions.
That's why when the whiners put me on the chopping block I was aqcuitted by the majority of members.
I haven't called his mod actions unchristian like yet.
I find them quite funny and immature.
PS. Now I'm skatin' right where I like it.
Ice cracklin' under me.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
What I mean is, Can you make a logical argument that using logical argumention is valuable, without begging the question? 'Modus ponens' for example is a syllogism. Can you use a syllogism, to prove that using syllogisms, is valuable without begging the question that using syllogisms is valuable?
You can't because you wind up showing that using language is the same thing. Can you show using language that it's better than not using language, without begging the question?
Language is like a magic trick. Nobody makes a logical argument that magic tricks are valuable (entertaining anyway). You just look on in awe at the tricks.
Logic is like that, but God is more like that than logic is. "The 'Logos'" is not and cannot possibly be logic itself, but I'd still tie together our concepts of God, logic, love, geometry and arithmetic etc. They are all different facets, one gemstone.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
In my conception God is love, it's not just that love exists because God exists, like with logic. Love exists because God exists because God is love, these are all denoting the same thing. But time would have to limit God like how logic limits Him, which is, really, not at all. iow you can't show or demonstrate logic ever really limiting God 'in the final analysis' imo.I'm sure it's just a phase you're going through.
But there is definitely a categorical difference between the past, the present and the future. That limits God as much as it limits us, if time is as absolutely existent as God Himself is. So I don't buy it. It seems arbitrary to think that of all the things that conceptually could be basically self-existent things that can limit God, that time would be the thing. Why not gravitation? Or osmosis? There are tons of things that anyone could argue limits God, that would therefore have to be a basically self-existent thing, I just don't see the value in or the evidence supporting making time one of those things. It just seems arbitrary, and that can mean that it's part of a narrative of some sort, and it might be a narrative that I don't 'buy'. But irregardless of that, it just doesn't seem necessary to conceptually subject God to the thing signified by the noun 'time'. He can easily, in my mind, exist without any connection with time at all, or, more to the point, He can interact with time however He wants. Like in Marvel's End Game, as a modern example from the (performing) arts (as opposed to ancient ones like Back to the Future).
Begging the question is not a formal fallacy. All it shows is laziness.
If people would simply state the things they hold as presuppositions, they would not be committing that error.
What would it even mean to be limited by time? You mean like how people are limited in the number of actions they can perform per minute? I would agree. God isn't limited to a number of actions per minute.
If you're saying that He can't be limited by what year it is and that He must be able to return to 1485 were He to desire it, then I would say that you believe time to be something it isn't, ie, a physical entity rather than an intangible idea.
Time is the distance between events. To "go back in time," one would have to recreate exactly the state of every bit of matter from a particular point in history.
I'm sure God could do that, but it would be an implicit admission of defeat or inadequacy.
Right Divider
Body part
False assumption.
The One that Created the universe is perfectly capable of telling us about it.
God can tell us what happened because He was there. Atheists don't have a clue how the universe came into existence without God so they invent ridiculous godless speculations they try to pass off as science.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
If A then B.
Therefore A.
Begging the question. It's like a bald assertion with extra steps.
It's the single most difficult fallacy to detect as far as I'm concerned. It's very sneaky.
Derf
Well-known member
Maybe even so sneaky the perpetrators don't know they're doing it.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Basically 100% yes.
I'm not sure that's a complete description.
I thought it was only an informal fallacy.
I find it real easy.
Is a Darwinist presenting reasons for what he believes? Yes? Then he has his assumptions among his evidence.
What I will agree with you on is that it is a common fallacy to find.
However, there is ultimately no way to eradicate it. Whatever your idea is, a child will easily expose it as self-referencing simply by asking "why?"
The only solution is to be explicit up front what your assumptions are.
expos4ever
Well-known member
I do not think most experts would agree with this "high- schooly" definition. The big Bang is considered to be a "scientific" theory even if it cannot be repeated - it makes falsifiable predictions that are supported by observations. Even though we are "observing" the past.
expos4ever
Well-known member
Nonsense. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about stars
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
expos4ever
Well-known member
Again: The theory of evolution has nothing to do with stars. Nothing Krauss says here connects the content of the theory of evolution to stellar processes. The fact that we come from star stuff has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection
Right Divider
Body part
"Most experts" do not determine what is true.
So is the "scientific" theory of goo-to-you. So what? We do NOT determine truth based on what is 'considered to be "scientific"'.
Like what? Don't forget that "falsifiable predictions" must be exclusively solved by this "theory". If other theories can also explain it, then it's not unique.
"Observations" of "billions of years" are nonsense.
Right Divider
Body part
There is no such "fact".
expos4ever
Well-known member
Re your first point: Hardly an argument that helps your position - you have cited a definition that few experts would agree with and yet expect us to believe it is a legitimate characterization of what science is?=.
Re your second point: Obvious moving the goalposts - I never claimed that truth is based on what falls within the definition of science. You claimed that the origin of the universe was not something that science could address. And you used a faulty definition of what counts as science to make that claim.
Re your third point: the Big Bang theory makes a falsifiable prediction about the relative abundance of hydrogen and helium in the universe.
Re your fourth point: Obvious evasion - you cannot simply dismiss the fact that, given the limited speed of light, when we peer out into space we are, of course, observing the past.