Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

A thought on creationism

Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 1:37:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Universe created itself + God did it = False Dichotomy
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 1:38:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 1:37:10 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Universe created itself + God did it = False Dichotomy

Though it said that in the title, I made sure to point out in the argument that it was either the universe, or an entity which was not the universe. Mutually exclusive terms =valid dichotomy.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 1:42:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 1:38:25 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:37:10 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Universe created itself + God did it = False Dichotomy

Though it said that in the title, I made sure to point out in the argument that it was either the universe, or an entity which was not the universe. Mutually exclusive terms =valid dichotomy.

Well, if that is your dichotomy then I am confused, as I thought this was about Creationism.... Something that is not the universe doesn't necessarily entail God, or Creationism for that matter.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 1:46:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 1:42:59 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:38:25 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:37:10 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Universe created itself + God did it = False Dichotomy

Though it said that in the title, I made sure to point out in the argument that it was either the universe, or an entity which was not the universe. Mutually exclusive terms =valid dichotomy.

Well, if that is your dichotomy then I am confused, as I thought this was about Creationism.... Something that is not the universe doesn't necessarily entail God, or Creationism for that matter.

Congrats on 8k posts!

The entailment is not necessary, however for the sake of argument I would posit thus due to the fact that logically laws apply to everything that logical laws could possibly apply to (necessary laws) and therefore nothing could start the universe.

I might also argue that the universe is everything that exists and before the universe there was nothing, so either the universe caused itself or something transphysical did it. In other words, if its not the universe, then its not physical, and if its not physical yet has the ability to create the universe then it must be some construct of transphysical being.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 2:07:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 1:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:42:59 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:38:25 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:37:10 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Universe created itself + God did it = False Dichotomy

Though it said that in the title, I made sure to point out in the argument that it was either the universe, or an entity which was not the universe. Mutually exclusive terms =valid dichotomy.

Well, if that is your dichotomy then I am confused, as I thought this was about Creationism.... Something that is not the universe doesn't necessarily entail God, or Creationism for that matter.

Congrats on 8k posts!

The entailment is not necessary, however for the sake of argument I would posit thus due to the fact that logically laws apply to everything that logical laws could possibly apply to (necessary laws) and therefore nothing could start the universe.

I might also argue that the universe is everything that exists and before the universe there was nothing, so either the universe caused itself or something transphysical did it. In other words, if its not the universe, then its not physical, and if its not physical yet has the ability to create the universe then it must be some construct of transphysical being.

You mean a transphysical something. Why must this something be a conscious, sentient being?
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 3:14:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 2:07:00 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:42:59 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:38:25 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:37:10 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Universe created itself + God did it = False Dichotomy

Though it said that in the title, I made sure to point out in the argument that it was either the universe, or an entity which was not the universe. Mutually exclusive terms =valid dichotomy.

Well, if that is your dichotomy then I am confused, as I thought this was about Creationism.... Something that is not the universe doesn't necessarily entail God, or Creationism for that matter.

Congrats on 8k posts!

The entailment is not necessary, however for the sake of argument I would posit thus due to the fact that logically laws apply to everything that logical laws could possibly apply to (necessary laws) and therefore nothing could start the universe.

I might also argue that the universe is everything that exists and before the universe there was nothing, so either the universe caused itself or something transphysical did it. In other words, if its not the universe, then its not physical, and if its not physical yet has the ability to create the universe then it must be some construct of transphysical being.

You mean a transphysical something. Why must this something be a conscious, sentient being?

Yes indeed, transphysical something. We can't say conscious and sentient, but at the bare minimum of 'being' that entails identifiable actuality whose attributes are open to debate. The argument if correct merely supports a weaker spin of deism, I can't imagine its use for traditional theism. But what do you think about the BoP?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 3:45:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 3:14:13 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/8/2014 2:07:00 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:42:59 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:38:25 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:37:10 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Universe created itself + God did it = False Dichotomy

Though it said that in the title, I made sure to point out in the argument that it was either the universe, or an entity which was not the universe. Mutually exclusive terms =valid dichotomy.

Well, if that is your dichotomy then I am confused, as I thought this was about Creationism.... Something that is not the universe doesn't necessarily entail God, or Creationism for that matter.

Congrats on 8k posts!

The entailment is not necessary, however for the sake of argument I would posit thus due to the fact that logically laws apply to everything that logical laws could possibly apply to (necessary laws) and therefore nothing could start the universe.

I might also argue that the universe is everything that exists and before the universe there was nothing, so either the universe caused itself or something transphysical did it. In other words, if its not the universe, then its not physical, and if its not physical yet has the ability to create the universe then it must be some construct of transphysical being.

You mean a transphysical something. Why must this something be a conscious, sentient being?

Yes indeed, transphysical something. We can't say conscious and sentient, but at the bare minimum of 'being' that entails identifiable actuality whose attributes are open to debate. The argument if correct merely supports a weaker spin of deism, I can't imagine its use for traditional theism. But what do you think about the BoP?

I think there is evidence. Given as you stated to draw any conclusions about the intelligence of the metaphysical being would be a big stretch. For one, with no idea of purpose you could not estimate the efficiency or level of reasoning involved.

I put this evidence forward in this debate: http://www.debate.org...

I didn't flesh the whole idea out and spelling is bad. I kind of rushed it.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 8:36:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's an interesting thought. I think the issue is that, if the atheist is claiming that "Y did not create the universe", or "Y is false", they do not have a burden of proof, until an argument exists for Y. By contrast, if they say "Y is false, because X" or "Y did not create the universe, because X did" then they have the burden for proving X.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 8:57:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Why would the universe be subject to its own laws?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 9:01:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Also, both sides would have the Bop to show that the universe must have been created in the first place.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2014 4:27:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 8:57:11 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Why would the universe be subject to its own laws?

The laws don't belong to the universe, the laws are the universe.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2014 4:32:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 9:01:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Also, both sides would have the Bop to show that the universe must have been created in the first place.

The BoP is currently against anyone who posits that the universe never began from my understanding.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2014 8:30:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/9/2014 4:27:28 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/8/2014 8:57:11 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Why would the universe be subject to its own laws?

The laws don't belong to the universe, the laws are the universe.

You said that the laws of the universe dictate that things cannot pop into existence randomly, but have made no attempt to show why this applies to the laws themselves. You are talking about two different things: things happening within the system and the system itself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2014 8:33:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/9/2014 4:32:18 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/8/2014 9:01:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Also, both sides would have the Bop to show that the universe must have been created in the first place.

The BoP is currently against anyone who posits that the universe never began from my understanding.

You do realize that BoP is just a rule of thumb, right? Anyone who makes a claim in either direction needs reasons. The default position with respect to truth is not one or the other.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2014 8:48:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/9/2014 8:30:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2014 4:27:28 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/8/2014 8:57:11 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Why would the universe be subject to its own laws?

The laws don't belong to the universe, the laws are the universe.

You said that the laws of the universe dictate that things cannot pop into existence randomly, but have made no attempt to show why this applies to the laws themselves. You are talking about two different things: things happening within the system and the system itself.

I state this as if they are true of logical necessity. It is impossible to conceptualise that contradictions are possible, yet we do not confirm this indefinitely, but anyone taking the case against the position has the BoP, which is what I would argue here.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2014 8:58:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/9/2014 8:33:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2014 4:32:18 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/8/2014 9:01:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:05:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I believe the theist has the BoP in a debate when claiming that God created the universe etc, however I spent today wasting my time thinking about whether or not this could be reversed.

I don't know how many past philosophers have given their wisdom as to the notion that the creationist does not in fact have the BoP due to natural observation confirming that change everywhere, anywhere equals 0. That's not to say that things don't change, but instead to say that net change of systems is never observed with the exception of movement towards thermal equilibrium. In application to existence, the existence of something ex nihilo defies the basic logical understanding of reality that such changes of infinite magnitude do not happen. The fact that the universe exists therefore is by a default position, explained by an entity which is not the universe. By this logic, a universe which created itself would have the BoP, and the creationist would not.

What are your thoughts?

Also, both sides would have the Bop to show that the universe must have been created in the first place.

The BoP is currently against anyone who posits that the universe never began from my understanding.

You do realize that BoP is just a rule of thumb, right? Anyone who makes a claim in either direction needs reasons. The default position with respect to truth is not one or the other.

Highly relevant to debate imo. There will always be the position that we accept until evidence changes things. In this case it could be argued that the universe was created by an entity which was not the universe would be the position we accept until proven elsewise.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...