I guess its the nature of a parody to bear some sort of similarity to its target.
BTW here is a better example of parody of technical language
Last edited:
The Creation
- Thread starter Buffalo Roam
- Start date
BTW here is a better example of parody of technical language
Anything that involves judging would always be open to skepticism and corruption. So I think you'd probably stand a better chance for gold in the Unanswered Questions event, at least there'd be a number to beat.
For the purposes of this debate I am assuming that create means causing something to occur unnaturally(i.e. defying laws of physics). So if that is what create means then God would be natural because He wasn't created..... IOW if God is unnatural then He would have to have been created. Is the God existence both a natural and unnatural occurrence? I suppose you're going to tell me that God is neither, and exists because of some other undefinable set of circumstances.
..... the parody continues (albeit not in such an entertaining fashion as John Cleese's skit)
Last edited:
The problem is that you are only prepared to accept the laws of physics as the definable set of circumstances. This is kind of self defeating since even our grasp of the laws of physics from 60 years ago wouldn't fully accommodate our current grasp of them. IOW if you don't have the scope to probe where the laws of physics come from, it should be clear that any inquiry into the nature of god is curbed from the onset.Anything that involves judging would always be open to skepticism and corruption. So I think you'd probably stand a better chance for gold in the Unanswered Questions event, at least there'd be a number to beat.
For the purposes of this debate I am assuming that create means causing something to occur unnaturally(i.e. defying laws of physics). So if that is what create means then God would be natural because He wasn't created..... IOW if God is unnatural then He would have to have been created. Is the God existence both a natural and unnatural occurrence? I suppose you're going to tell me that God is neither, and exists because of some other undefinable set of circumstances.
Au contraire, I am very interested in what people think. I'm willing to accept anything under certain conditions. Your claim that there is more than one set of circumstances is not legitimate unless the codicil 'I think' precedes it. There seems to be an overabundance of thoughts in religion that are given credence and, if I may say, reduced to reality.
I think it's wonderful that people use their imaginations but like 60 year old physics, it's best if kept current. I don't want to hazard to guess on how old theism is but if I were to compare it to physics then I'd have to say your reliance on ancient data does not accommodate our current grasp on theism. And really, that is the crux of the whole theist-atheist debate. However doing so would leave you vanquished and you are left with no alternative than to support information that is not only passe but are just thoughts made real.
You can say you think God creates in any fashion you wish. However there is no actual accounting for a creation of God, His existence, knowledge and life. I'll maintain that there is no way you or anyone else can explain how God was endowed with the aforementioned attributes and then further complicate things by giving God credit for actually inventing them.
huh?Au contraire, I am very interested in what people think. I'm willing to accept anything under certain conditions. Your claim that there is more than one set of circumstances is not legitimate unless the codicil 'I think' precedes it. There seems to be an overabundance of thoughts in religion that are given credence and, if I may say, reduced to reality.
Its not clear how one can even accept one set of circumstances as definitive without the preceding "I think ...".
:shrug:
You miss the point.
If the current grasp stands outside of what was defined as definitive 60 years ago, it should be clear that the current grasp is also liable to subsequent revisions (and the hence the whole issue of trying to tag it as definitive is a crock).
Don't know what you are looking at when you say our current grasp on theism .... especially as far as physics goes to defining it.
On the contrary, the crux of a/theist debate is that atheism relies on theory to perpetually balk at the point of application (which is the means that opens the door on any epistemological model you care to mention). Or to say more precisely, your average atheist suffers from pro-active interference.
well yeah sure ... much like there is no accounting for where the laws of physics come from via an analysis of the law of physics .... a scenario remarkably similar to there is no accounting for accurately measuring temperature with a tape measure (IOW bring the wrong tools to the task and you're screwed from the onset)
sheesh
If god an entity, what on earth makes you say that?
I mean would you push your parents aside in coming to the conclusion that there is no way you or anyone can explain anything about their childhood? I mean is there something about characteristics of persons who precede your being conceived in the womb totally unassailable or fraught with gross fabrication?
As long as you're sure - - -LG said:
That would be the first thing to try, though, and the likely first step in a successful accounting. Clearly the history of their formulation might also be useful, and a comparison with other human formulations in analogous situations.
No. That is not the crux of any atheist/thiest debate I have ever seen.LG said:
To the extent that meant anything at all in reference to actual debate, of course. Not, technically speaking, a great extent.
My guess is that no one has ever "defined as definitive" any grasp somehow involving the laws of physics, except possibly some theologian somewhere. Crocks R Us, in theology.LG said:
Last edited:
well when ever you find success in that department, wiki is waiting to grant you fame ...
then perhaps now would be a good opportunity for you to (again) explain to us why you have no requirement to meet the normative descriptions of theism
the actual debate?
please divulge ...
hehe
Good Grief!!!
Let's stick to creation.
I'm going to suggest to you that God created nothing. Let's say it's the actual state of nothingness some say preceded the universe. A few quantum fluctuations later and voila, here we are. If you consider a scenario where God makes Himself & everything else associated with His existence completely disappear then would such an event qualify as the Creation?
I think we can safely assume that God would have knowledge of how a universe could originate solely from nothing. Before you tell me I'm delving into the world of physics again I think it should be noted that as an omni God, He would be capable of performing such an act, physics or no physics. Therefore God would know exactly what transpires if He made everything go away.
Just think, all theists everywhere who give God credit for creation would be correct. Atheists would also be correct, since God does not exist. Kind of where were at right now.
Others are beating me to it. Progress, in that field, is becoming possible.LG said:
I'm not a theist.LG said:
Nope. Actual debate. Any.LG said:
Relevance? No defining of definition of anything appears in that link, let alone a grasp involving laws of physics.LG said:
The "technical" vocabulary seems to confuse you. Try normal words, that have meanings you can keep track of.
so IOW you are not prepared to discuss god as an eternal entity (what to speak of the potencies of god, such as the material manifestation or the living entities)Good Grief!!!
Let's stick to creation.
I'm going to suggest to you that God created nothing. Let's say it's the actual state of nothingness some say preceded the universe. A few quantum fluctuations later and voila, here we are. If you consider a scenario where God makes Himself & everything else associated with His existence completely disappear then would such an event qualify as the Creation?
an eternal contingent potency is just that - something that constantly accompanies the potent. IOW the whole question of god suddenly un/manifesting something undercuts the whole suggestion that its useless to try and bring linear time to such an explanation
Then I guess that just leaves the issues of maintenance of the universe
On the assumption that we are talking about events separate from Hollywood, no doubt there are still a few hitches at the point of theory ....
So if you were critiquing a claim of advanced physics while laying outside of the normative prerequisites for the discipline of physics, the one liner "I am not a physicist" somehow lends credibility to your claims?
well -um - yeah - the actual debate being?
Maybe you missed the intro ....
Reductionist thinking and methods are the basis for many of the well-developed areas of modern science, including much of physics, chemistry and cell biology. Classical mechanics in particular is seen as a reductionist framework, and statistical mechanics can be viewed as a reconciliation of macroscopic thermodynamic laws with the reductionist approach of explaining macroscopic properties in terms of microscopic components.
... or perhaps the dominant ideologies behind the contemporaries bypassed you
Daniel Dennett defends scientific reductionism - which he says is really little more than materialism ......
Richard Dawkins introduced the term "hierarchical reductionism"[5] to describe the view that complex systems can be described with a hierarchy of organizations, each of which is only described in terms of objects one level down in the hierarchy.
If you can't see the connection between the link and the offering of physics as a definitive means to justify ontological claims, it appears that you are the one struggling with issues of literacy.
Nope.LG said:
You do realize there's no analogy there, right? I mean to the extent "laying outside of the normative prerequisites" means anything.
Irrelevant to the point.LG said:
Nope. Subject reductionism etc, no defining any definitions of anything.LG said:
Familiar, fail to define definitions of anything.LG said:
I can see just fine that you are having problems with the word "definitive", and are under the delusion that thisLG said:
means something in English with a basis in reality.
Daniel Dennett would be good model to follow. He doesn't throw in "technical" terms where they are bullshit.
To the extent that anyone has to apply themselves in specific ways to learn anything much more than what's growing on their nose, you're completely wrong
well you brought up the whole thing that there was something to the actual debate that was being transgressed ...
:shrug:
at the very least, Dennet and Dawkins disagree ...
hehe
You sure picked a fine time to trash over 200 years of scientific advancement
No doubt he is at least not shy about speaking about the ontological ramifications of his terms ...
This is a creation thread, not a discussion about eternal beings. I think God's creation should rate a glance, even if you don't believe it ever happened.
Maybe to you. Are you saying God can't perform this function (create nothing)? I'd hate to see Him lose an omni.
With God not here then there is no reason to worry about how He performs that duty.
If God once existed and did create nothing by removing Himself forever then everything fits. We have no evidence of God but theories abound re something from nothing. To deny that God is incapable of such an act is blasphemous(if He was still here) and contrary to His omnipotence. You can't tell me that God doesn't know how to create a universe from nothing. Man's theories on how are just investigating the possibility.
God's omniscience...... When you know everything, what is the point of creating anything, really?
... well you seem to want to try and pose the issue of god's creation as if it operates under the same jurisdiction as the manifestation of the phenomenal world .... IOW its an issue that painfully ignores the standard position of god (ie summum bonum, etc)
nothing doesn't require creation.
Jeez even you can create nothing
:shrug:
Everything fits?
Everything fits what?
lol
even to ignore the tons of normative issues that frame the claim of god's existence (ie the favorite pastime of atheists), how does an abundance of theories make for evidence?
I mean even theism has the claim of issues of application, even if you wish to ignore them.
In one sense you could say that the material world is created from nothing since its prime role is to facilitate the desires of illusioned living entities who have a notion of independent existence from god ... which is the closest thing to "nothing" from god's perspective (since the raw elements of time, space, etc which might very well frame our image of perfect "nothingness" are still "something" from god's perspective).
The closest they have come to creating something from nothing is generating money from grants in the pursuit of futile ends.
Even living entities (since its the nature of being made in god's image) derive an element of pleasure from the creative impetus.
No, they don't.LG said:
I'm responding from their pov.
They don't have to assume unmotivated nonsense, or take as premises the conclusions they mean to compare and discuss and possibly arrive at.LG said:
No, I didn't.LG said:
Your attempt at deflecting the argument into your rut of gibberish is still being resisted, you see - regardless of the appearance of success the lack of progress and continual irrelevancy would indicate.
We are going to discuss the OT without assuming, a priori, the existence of your particular deity, or not at all.
not when you suggest that there is nothing fundamental to a reductionist view
your values aside, it still remains a fundamental fact to any pedagogical model you can think of that there is a very real need for prerequisites.
On the contrary, you seem to be relegating the terms of an actual debate to a mere agreement to your values.
Its you who is hell bent on stalling any movement in the general direction of debate.
Your inability to entertain the technical language that surrounds the topic is an example of this.
:shrug:
Why not just take the OT as it is without bringing your "without's" to the table in a vain attempt to grant a superior position?