Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Supercharazad]

Personally, I am what I call (not really sure if it's correct though) a "thiestic agnostic"

I believe that there IS OR WAS a being that existed eternally at least until the creation of the universe "the big bang".
This god MAY OR MAY NOT still exist.
This god is PROBABLY NOT one humans can comprehend, or know about.

My reasons?

There happens to be a very fun scientific law that states the following:
"Matter and energy cannot be destroyed or created, however they can be interchanged"
This means that something had to be there eternally, because something could not come into existance.

My theory is as follows:

Something existed.
Something happened to make it expand
This "something" that had "something" happen to it is probably the universe itself (or multiverse, whatever floats your tea set)


Also, a little known fun fact, the big bang only produced energy and hydrogen! The hydrogen clumped together to make stars, the energy made it fuse, helium and other base elements came out!



Also, lunatics are people made insane by the MOON, not by a lack of logic

[Shades]

Personally, I am what I call (not really sure if it's correct though) a "thiestic agnostic"

I'd call you a theist with that, you state there is or was which isn't agnostic. However I believe you are correct in using the term as you did. (I'm just saying I'd call you a theist ).

Also, lunatics are people made insane by the MOON, not by a lack of logic

Only technically

[Siquo]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the statement that humans are not logical. Everything we do always has a good reason(even if, often, base). The subset of mankind which does not follow logic is called "lunatics".

Recent neurological research shows that more often than not we make up the reason why we did something after we actually did it, so that fails. And "having a reason" does not make one logical. If it is, then the universe-according-to-atheism, having no reason to exist, must be illogical (see? I can do petty strawmen as well)

Well, sure, one can always ask a silly question that has no answer. It's not the fault of whatever tool you're going to use, that you can't find an answer. You've just asked a silly question.

And they call me evasive
Still, it's a question I want answered. It just can't be answered with the tool called logic, so I need to find my answers elsewhere. I'm not saying logic sucks, it's just that it's hard to screw with a hammer.

Also, a little known fun fact, the big bang only produced energy and hydrogen! The hydrogen clumped together to make stars, the energy made it fuse, helium and other base elements came out!

Yeah, we already covered that with the 3rd generation of stars in defending the Big Bang theory, a page or 20 ago. Fun fact: hydrogen is energy, too
But more serious: If not comprehensible, what aspects does this "primal mover" of yours have? Does it have intelligence? Is it conscious? Was there a purpose in the creation of the Big Bang? And how do you know?

[Shades]

Still, it's a question I want answered. It just can't be answered with the tool called logic, so I need to find my answers elsewhere. I'm not saying logic sucks, it's just that it's hard to screw with a hammer.

Again a random comparison with to something, the application of logic is in no way like trying to screw with a hammer, the point of that comparison is to imply that your using the wrong tool and if you trying to imply that about logic you again don't understand it.

[Siquo]

Again a random comparison with to something, the application of logic is in no way like trying to screw with a hammer, the point of that comparison is to imply that your using the wrong tool and if you trying to imply that about logic you again don't understand it.

Then define logic instead of yelling "you're doing it wrong". I showed you mine, you show me yours.

[Il Palazzo]

Also, a little known fun fact, the big bang only produced energy and hydrogen! The hydrogen clumped together to make stars, the energy made it fuse, helium and other base elements came out!

If I remember Weiner's "The first three minutes" correctly, the current model of early universe shows that there was only energy at the onset of the expansion, and the elementary particles were a product of creation(in the physical sense), so that's even a step further than what you said.

As for your theory: does it make any sense to ponder what "happened" to cause the Big Bang, if there was no time before Big Bang? It's like asking where's the begining of a circle.
But yeah, we weren't supposed to repeat the arguments twice in this thread.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the statement that humans are not logical. Everything we do always has a good reason(even if, often, base). The subset of mankind which does not follow logic is called "lunatics".

Recent neurological research shows that more often than not we make up the reason why we did something after we actually did it, so that fails. And "having a reason" does not make one logical. If it is, then the universe-according-to-atheism, having no reason to exist, must be illogical (see? I can do petty strawmen as well)

There is always a reason following logical analysis: e.g. "I will not do this because I'm lazy" or "I will do this because I like it" are logical reasons, stemming from one's set of percieved values and logical predictions of the outcomes of one's actions. Even if at the time of making a decision a person does not choose consciously, their decision is determined by the pre-existing connections in their brains.

As for you strawman, "reason" is an attribute of a being with a mind. It should not be applied to mindless entities, as it makes no sense.
Also, while having a reason(and being reasonable) implies being logical, being logical does not necessarily imply having a reason(p=>q, not p<=>q)

Well, sure, one can always ask a silly question that has no answer. It's not the fault of whatever tool you're going to use, that you can't find an answer. You've just asked a silly question.

And they call me evasive
Still, it's a question I want answered. It just can't be answered with the tool called logic, so I need to find my answers elsewhere. I'm not saying logic sucks, it's just that it's hard to screw with a hammer.

Of course you will look for your answer somewhere else, as indeed, the question is unaswerable with logic. My point is, there's no point in asking such a question in the first place. It's silly, and it should be recognized as such. If you'll abandon logic, you will find only silly answers. You can then start asking questions with no relevance to the reality, and inventing some random, and meaningless solution to the non-existing problems of yours.

[Shades]

Then define logic instead of yelling "you're doing it wrong". I showed you mine, you show me yours.

Shall we start with wikipedias brief overview on the subject and work from there? I note that your class on propositional calculus is linked from here under one of the forms of logical definition, namely mathematical logic.

[Siquo]

Also, while having a reason(and being reasonable) implies being logical, being logical does not necessarily imply having a reason(p=>q, not p<=>q)

I can have illogical reasons and reasoning.

Of course you will look for your answer somewhere else, as indeed, the question is unaswerable with logic. If you'll abandon logic, you will find only silly answers. You can then start asking questions with no relevance to the reality, and inventing some random, and meaningless solution to the non-existing problems of yours.

My problem is (or was) very real. Making it silly by smacking it with a hammer does not make it any less real.

Shades:
Well then, from that article: "[Logic] does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other representations"

There you go, a limitation on logic.

[Shades]

Well then, from that article: "[Logic] does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other representations"

There you go, a limitation on logic.

Rather than cherry picking quotes, attempt to use context.

Also do note that even that quote is not close to what you were saying and in fact implies that it can be used exactly in the cases we are talking about.

[Siquo]

Rather than cherry picking quotes, attempt to use context.

Also do note that even that quote is not close to what you were saying and in fact implies that it can be used exactly in the cases we are talking about.

How illogical  . The only thing I said was that logic does not suffice in the case I presented, because you always end up with circular reasoning, and I extended that by saying that logic itself is limited. My cherry-picked quote points out another limitation (albeit aspecific). If you disagree, please state your disagreement in an understandable way other than "that's not logic".

Also, here, pick one or two or all of them for all I care, and stick with it.

[Urist is dead tome]

Seems to me that Siquo has gone stark raving mad. Girls don't find that attractive.

[Siquo]

Yes. Yes they do. But that's a different topic.

[Leafsnail]

Here your "logic" fails you. There is no meaningful answer. Why? Because logic has limitations. Humans are not logical. Spock is, computers are, but we're not. We can, but we can do so much more.

You're just asking an invalid question.  A question doesn't deserve an answer just because it's possible to phrase it ("Why are unicorns hollow?").

Ok, Siquo.  I get it.  You're cherry picking certain definitions of "logic", attacking them, and then using that as an excuse to make nonsensical arguments.

Well, if logic is invalid, and circular arguments are a-ok:
Siquo is wrong because he has completely missed the point.
He has completely missed the point because he is wrong.

Perfectly valid, right?

[Siquo]

Who said anything about validity (if you mean the "logical" sense of the word). But still, you've got a point. What am I missing and where am I wrong?

Second of all, I'm not cherry picking. There's a whole box of cherries there.

There's also no such thing as an invalid question, just questions you can't answer. Zen koans, for instance. Full of questions, and meaningful answers, but no Logic.
Just ignoring anything you can't explain (yet) is also a way of dealing with the world.

[Glowcat]

With neither Empiricism nor Reason your ability to persuade rests in emotional appeal... and in this case you're attempting to persuade about reality via an emotional appeal. This disregard for any meaningful attempt to discern truth is why society is such a mess of idiotic yet entrenched worldviews that cause a ranging amount of harm... and argument against them or their very real negative effects be damned because each group KNOWS in their heart that what they believe is true.

Progress is impossible where blind Faith is valued. Why even partake in a debate thread when you've already come to your conclusion and are unwilling to modify it based on argument?