Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

# This universe has a beginning and Creator.

 Posts: 16 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 5:30:41 PMPosted: 5 years agoI) The universe could not have been a "product of chance".Logically, there is an equal probability of the universe existing vis a vis its not existing (It is as someone may say 50/50). Existence will not give itself preponderance over non-existence except by being designated with it, by other than itself, i.e., it is dependent upon being designated with existence.II) The universe is not self-created.A thing cannot create itself. Whatever is non-existent is incapable of doing anything, much less allegedly "create itself". The action itself is dependent upon the existence of that thing in the first place. Furthermore, to claim, for instance, that the universe created itself, entails two contradictions simultaneously: It would be like claiming that the universe existed before and after itself to create itself. This also breaks the Law of Non-Contradiction, which is "the basic law of logic which states that it is not possible for something to be and not be at the same time".III) The universe is not beginning-less..What if someone told you "I will give you this dollar after an infinite amount of time". Will you ever receive this dollar? No. Likewise, if an infinite amount of time preceded the present, will it ever be traversed? No. The claim entails that an infinite amount of time can be traversable - which is impossible. In other words, an explanation:Premise A: We exist here today.Premise B: Before we existed there were a series of events, one after another leading up to our existence today. (The passing of such a series of events is what we call time, and measure in minutes, days, weeks and years.)If one accepts Premise A, then one must also accept that the series of events in premise B must have a beginning. This must be, because if someone claims that an eternal amount of events had to be concluded before his existence, then he is saying that eternity came to an end, which is a contradiction in terms. It is like if someone said "this car will only get to its destination after its wheels have spun infinitely many times," and then claimed that the car arrived at its destination. It is clear, however, that the car could never have gotten to its destination if an infinite number of spins was the condition for its arrival.Those who claim that the world has no beginning are in fact saying that it is a prerequisite for tomorrow to arrive that an infinite number of events first take place. This is impossible, because infinity cannot end. Clearly then, the number of events that precedes our existence must have a limit.In addition, since it is necessarily true that this series of events has a beginning, then it must also be that before this beginning there were no series of events (defined as anything with a beginning). If someone claimed otherwise, then they would end up with the same contradiction (saying that infinity came to an end). Accordingly, the claim that the world was created by random events is irrational.Rather, there must be a Creator that gave the series of events existence, since it was nonexistent before it began. Moreover, since it is impossible for there to be any events before the existence of this series, then it must also be that the Creator is not attributed with events, i.e. with any attribute or action that has a beginning. This again means that the Creator does not resemble His creation, since all created attributes must have a beginning. Actually, having a beginning and being a creation is the same thing. This is because to create is to bring into existence, and everything with a beginning must have been brought into existence.We know from the above, by mathematical precision and logical necessity, that the Creator exists and does not resemble His creation. From the fact that the world has a beginning, we have proven that it must have a creator. The name of this creator is Allah in Arabic. If someone asks, "Who created Allah?" we say Allah does not have a creator, and does not need one as He has no beginning. If someone then asks, "how can you accept that Allah has no beginning, while you do not accept that the world has no beginning?" The answer is that we have shown that the world has a beginning based on the fact that it changes (changes are events). We do not believe, however, that Allah changes. Rather, we believe The Creator is One, and doesn't change and has no beginning.The fact that Allah does not resemble His creation can also be known by saying that since The Creator's existence must be (as shown above), then it cannot also be merely possible (since "must be" and "possible" are incompatible meanings – something cannot be both a must and a possibility at the same time). Therefore, The Creator must be clear of any attribute that belongs to the possible category of things. For example, weakness, limits, boundaries and needs are attributes that may or may not have existence; their existence depends on them being created; their existence is a possibility, not a must. They need a Creator to specify their limits. We know that we need a Creator, because we know that our own attributes need specification. We know they need specification because they have limits, and limits must be specified. For example, if you pointed at a table in a room and said, "Who made it in that shape?" and someone answered, "No one, it is just there like that eternally!" Would you accept this? Of course not, because we know anything limited needs someone to specify it.If someone asked: If an event can be defined as an action that has a beginning and giving a series of events existence is an action with a beginning (and if it's not, then what is it?), then how can one rationally conclude, based on the logic presented above, that the Creator is not attributed with events?The answer to this is that we did not define events as actions having a beginning, but as "anything that has a beginning." Actions may have a beginning, namely the actions of creation – as they all share this resemblance, or they may not, namely the actions of Allah.Allah does not resemble His creation, so He is not an event or attributed with events. This is because to "create" is to "bring into existence," and all events are therefore by definition created. As Allah's attributes are not creations, they are not events.Last but not least, in attempt to confuse, or out of confusion some may ask:"What if the world's existence is cyclical?" Our answer to this is that cycles are still one cycle one after another, so they are events. Some may also ask, in an attempt to confuse: "Before Allah created this series of events, was He able to create another series or not?" Our answer to this is that this is a nonsensical question, because what we established was that there must be an event that is first, regardless of the number of series, or the number of worlds preceding the current one. We also established that Allah's actions are not events, so they are not described with a "before."IV) Due to empiricism not applying to it, it does not necessitate that the thing's existence must be nixed. Just because something isn't empirical doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I have never seen another person's mind; yet I hesitate not in believing that the people I deal with have minds/intellect. I see that in their speech and behavior--that is, I see the signs of their intelligence, and likewise, when I see the creation, I see the signs for The Creator's Existence.Nowadays, scientists are able to discover many things because of technological advances. One hundred years ago, some empiricists would say since amoebas aren't observable, they don't exist. To the contrary, in the present day, one can use a microscope and see that it surely exists - such an application of empiricism is flawed.
 Posts: 16 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 5:31:36 PMPosted: 5 years agoWhatever changes has a beginning. Change is in reality a beginning (the change began and it ended, otherwise, if you say it is eternal, will it ever get to that next form? No.) and anything with a beginning needs to be brought into existence. Having been brought into existence is to have been created, so everything with a beginning is created. In other words, all change is created.
 Posts: 5,032 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 5:42:28 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 5:30:41 PM, Reprobation wrote:I) The universe could not have been a "product of chance".Logically, there is an equal probability of the universe existing vis a vis its not existing (It is as someone may say 50/50). Existence will not give itself preponderance over non-existence except by being designated with it, by other than itself, i.e., it is dependent upon being designated with existence.Fail. Thats like saying "Logically, there is an equal probability of there being rain tommorow. It either rains or it doesnt". No no, you have no idea of how to calculate probabilities at all.II) The universe is not self-created.A thing cannot create itself. Whatever is non-existent is incapable of doing anything, much less allegedly "create itself". The action itself is dependent upon the existence of that thing in the first place. Furthermore, to claim, for instance, that the universe created itself, entails two contradictions simultaneously: It would be like claiming that the universe existed before and after itself to create itself. This also breaks the Law of Non-Contradiction, which is "the basic law of logic which states that it is not possible for something to be and not be at the same time".How can you know this? no one knows whether the universe can create itself.III) The universe is not beginning-less..What if someone told you "I will give you this dollar after an infinite amount of time". Will you ever receive this dollar? No. Likewise, if an infinite amount of time preceded the present, will it ever be traversed? No. The claim entails that an infinite amount of time can be traversable - which is impossible. In other words, an explanation:This argument would hold weight, if you disregard the fact that infinity isnt a number. Your analogy and your argument fails.Premise A: We exist here today.Premise B: Before we existed there were a series of events, one after another leading up to our existence today. (The passing of such a series of events is what we call time, and measure in minutes, days, weeks and years.)If one accepts Premise A, then one must also accept that the series of events in premise B must have a beginning. This must be, because if someone claims that an eternal amount of events had to be concluded before his existence, then he is saying that eternity came to an end, which is a contradiction in terms. It is like if someone said "this car will only get to its destination after its wheels have spun infinitely many times," and then claimed that the car arrived at its destination. It is clear, however, that the car could never have gotten to its destination if an infinite number of spins was the condition for its arrival.Those who claim that the world has no beginning are in fact saying that it is a prerequisite for tomorrow to arrive that an infinite number of events first take place. This is impossible, because infinity cannot end. Clearly then, the number of events that precedes our existence must have a limit.In addition, since it is necessarily true that this series of events has a beginning, then it must also be that before this beginning there were no series of events (defined as anything with a beginning). If someone claimed otherwise, then they would end up with the same contradiction (saying that infinity came to an end). Accordingly, the claim that the world was created by random events is irrational.Rather, there must be a Creator that gave the series of events existence, since it was nonexistent before it began. Moreover, since it is impossible for there to be any events before the existence of this series, then it must also be that the Creator is not attributed with events, i.e. with any attribute or action that has a beginning. This again means that the Creator does not resemble His creation, since all created attributes must have a beginning. Actually, having a beginning and being a creation is the same thing. This is because to create is to bring into existence, and everything with a beginning must have been brought into existence.Isnt this argument just a long-winded version of the Kalam cosmological argument? I dunno, most of it was Tl;Dr.
 Posts: 5,032 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 5:43:58 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 5:31:36 PM, Reprobation wrote:Whatever changes has a beginning. Change is in reality a beginning (the change began and it ended, otherwise, if you say it is eternal, will it ever get to that next form? No.) and anything with a beginning needs to be brought into existence. Having been brought into existence is to have been created, so everything with a beginning is created. In other words, all change is created.In any case, the argument fails because of an unfounded premise. The premise of "Change has a beginning" fails because it is unfounded and not necessarily true.
 Posts: 16 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 5:54:31 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 5:42:28 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 5:30:41 PM, Reprobation wrote:I) The universe could not have been a "product of chance".Logically, there is an equal probability of the universe existing vis a vis its not existing (It is as someone may say 50/50). Existence will not give itself preponderance over non-existence except by being designated with it, by other than itself, i.e., it is dependent upon being designated with existence.Fail. Thats like saying "Logically, there is an equal probability of there being rain tommorow. It either rains or it doesnt". No no, you have no idea of how to calculate probabilities at all.II) The universe is not self-created.A thing cannot create itself. Whatever is non-existent is incapable of doing anything, much less allegedly "create itself". The action itself is dependent upon the existence of that thing in the first place. Furthermore, to claim, for instance, that the universe created itself, entails two contradictions simultaneously: It would be like claiming that the universe existed before and after itself to create itself. This also breaks the Law of Non-Contradiction, which is "the basic law of logic which states that it is not possible for something to be and not be at the same time".How can you know this? no one knows whether the universe can create itself.III) The universe is not beginning-less..What if someone told you "I will give you this dollar after an infinite amount of time". Will you ever receive this dollar? No. Likewise, if an infinite amount of time preceded the present, will it ever be traversed? No. The claim entails that an infinite amount of time can be traversable - which is impossible. In other words, an explanation:This argument would hold weight, if you disregard the fact that infinity isnt a number. Your analogy and your argument fails.Premise A: We exist here today.Premise B: Before we existed there were a series of events, one after another leading up to our existence today. (The passing of such a series of events is what we call time, and measure in minutes, days, weeks and years.)If one accepts Premise A, then one must also accept that the series of events in premise B must have a beginning. This must be, because if someone claims that an eternal amount of events had to be concluded before his existence, then he is saying that eternity came to an end, which is a contradiction in terms. It is like if someone said "this car will only get to its destination after its wheels have spun infinitely many times," and then claimed that the car arrived at its destination. It is clear, however, that the car could never have gotten to its destination if an infinite number of spins was the condition for its arrival.Those who claim that the world has no beginning are in fact saying that it is a prerequisite for tomorrow to arrive that an infinite number of events first take place. This is impossible, because infinity cannot end. Clearly then, the number of events that precedes our existence must have a limit.In addition, since it is necessarily true that this series of events has a beginning, then it must also be that before this beginning there were no series of events (defined as anything with a beginning). If someone claimed otherwise, then they would end up with the same contradiction (saying that infinity came to an end). Accordingly, the claim that the world was created by random events is irrational.Rather, there must be a Creator that gave the series of events existence, since it was nonexistent before it began. Moreover, since it is impossible for there to be any events before the existence of this series, then it must also be that the Creator is not attributed with events, i.e. with any attribute or action that has a beginning. This again means that the Creator does not resemble His creation, since all created attributes must have a beginning. Actually, having a beginning and being a creation is the same thing. This is because to create is to bring into existence, and everything with a beginning must have been brought into existence.Isnt this argument just a long-winded version of the Kalam cosmological argument? I dunno, most of it was Tl;Dr.Do you even understand what I'm saying? There are only two things which can apply to the universe: non-existence or existence. Why do you make it so hard? The probabality of one occurring as opposed to the other, is so to speak 50/50, because it's only TWO options. Or you can use a calculator yourself and find out what 1/2 equals.Existence precedes action. A non-existent thing can't do ANYTHING. You also, as I said earlier infringe upon one of the most fundamental laws of philosophy: the Law of non-contradiction.The onus is upon the claimant, how does this argument "fail"? Or are you just going to aimlessly prattle about it, according to you, "failing"?
 Posts: 16 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 5:57:20 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 5:43:58 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 5:31:36 PM, Reprobation wrote:Whatever changes has a beginning. Change is in reality a beginning (the change began and it ended, otherwise, if you say it is eternal, will it ever get to that next form? No.) and anything with a beginning needs to be brought into existence. Having been brought into existence is to have been created, so everything with a beginning is created. In other words, all change is created.In any case, the argument fails because of an unfounded premise. The premise of "Change has a beginning" fails because it is unfounded and not necessarily true.Wrong. Change, necessarily has a beginning. Read what I posted again, rather than fatuously posting retorts. My first post on change confutes this argument you've presented against it. If the change doesn't have a beginning, then it either never occurred, or if one claims that it is beginning-less, then, according to them, it has no end. And, change, by definition, is from one state to another. Hence, if one claiming it was beginning-less, they would also be implying the change never occurred.
 Posts: 5,032 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 6:03:20 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 5:54:31 PM, Reprobation wrote:Do you even understand what I'm saying? There are only two things which can apply to the universe: non-existence or existence. Why do you make it so hard? The probabality of one occurring as opposed to the other, is so to speak 50/50, because it's only TWO options. Or you can use a calculator yourself and find out what 1/2 equals.Yes, i do understand what youre saying. Do you undestand what im saying? There are only two things which can apply to the weather: Either its raiing or it isnt. Its not really hard at all. But the probability of it raining tomorrow, isnt automatically 50/50 now is it? Despite there being ONLY TWO options.Thats why your argument fails. You have no understanding of probability. The chances of winning a lottery ticket isnt 50/50 despite having only two options, a winning ticket, and a losing ticket.Existence precedes action. A non-existent thing can't do ANYTHING. You also, as I said earlier infringe upon one of the most fundamental laws of philosophy: the Law of non-contradiction.The onus is upon the claimant, how does this argument "fail"? Or are you just going to aimlessly prattle about it, according to you, "failing"?Yes, but i never commented on the fact that existance precedes action. What I did comment on, was that something can infact be infinite, and still get to a point in time.
 Posts: 5,032 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 6:07:28 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 5:57:20 PM, Reprobation wrote:Wrong. Change, necessarily has a beginning. Read what I posted again, rather than fatuously posting retorts. My first post on change confutes this argument you've presented against it. If the change doesn't have a beginning, then it either never occurred, or if one claims that it is beginning-less, then, according to them, it has no end. And, change, by definition, is from one state to another. Hence, if one claiming it was beginning-less, they would also be implying the change never occurred.No, as i said before, you have ignored the possibility that the universe has always existed and that change never had a beginning and has always existed in an endless loop. Read what i posted, because i think you missed that. It "Implies" two things. Either Change never occurred, OR Change has always occured in an endless string, an endless loop.
 Posts: 16 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 6:13:18 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 6:03:20 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 5:54:31 PM, Reprobation wrote:Do you even understand what I'm saying? There are only two things which can apply to the universe: non-existence or existence. Why do you make it so hard? The probabality of one occurring as opposed to the other, is so to speak 50/50, because it's only TWO options. Or you can use a calculator yourself and find out what 1/2 equals.Yes, i do understand what youre saying. Do you undestand what im saying? There are only two things which can apply to the weather: Either its raiing or it isnt. Its not really hard at all. But the probability of it raining tomorrow, isnt automatically 50/50 now is it? Despite there being ONLY TWO options.Thats why your argument fails. You have no understanding of probability. The chances of winning a lottery ticket isnt 50/50 despite having only two options, a winning ticket, and a losing ticket.Existence precedes action. A non-existent thing can't do ANYTHING. You also, as I said earlier infringe upon one of the most fundamental laws of philosophy: the Law of non-contradiction.The onus is upon the claimant, how does this argument "fail"? Or are you just going to aimlessly prattle about it, according to you, "failing"?Yes, but i never commented on the fact that existance precedes action. What I did comment on, was that something can infact be infinite, and still get to a point in time.Logically speaking, it is 50/50. That's a false analogy. There are aspects which can affect the winning lottery ticket, seeing as how there are a multitude of them. The universe has only two options: non-existence or existence. 1/2=50%.You said that "nobody knows if the universe can't create itself". The proof for the universe having a beginning still holds.
 Posts: 12,232 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 6:14:50 PMPosted: 5 years agoInfinity doesn't pose any inherent contradictions. Posing logically contradictory scenerios does not negate infinity.There is no evidence that the Universe had a beginning.No one said the Universe creates itself. Although, it's true, the Universe cannot create itself (because a thing cannot be the cause of itself, this poses a blatant logical contradiction). However, what if the Universe is just eternal AND self-existent. There is no need for a creator or cause for a Universe when it is self-existent and eternal.Also, if you say that that is not possible for the Universe and that only God can have those ontological attributes, then you are committing a special pleading fallacy."Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals." -- Murray Rothbard, 'The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited,' Reason, 1977 "Scholarship is essentially confirming your early paranoia through a deeper factual analysis." -- Murray Rothbard, Polytechnic University lecture
 Posts: 16 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 6:20:25 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 6:14:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:Infinity doesn't pose any inherent contradictions. Posing logically contradictory scenerios does not negate infinity.There is no evidence that the Universe had a beginning.No one said the Universe creates itself. Although, it's true, the Universe cannot create itself (because a thing cannot be the cause of itself, this poses a blatant logical contradiction). However, what if the Universe is just eternal AND self-existent. There is no need for a creator or cause for a Universe when it is self-existent and eternal.Also, if you say that that is not possible for the Universe and that only God can have those ontological attributes, then you are committing a special pleading fallacy.Did you even read the whole post? The special pleading fallacy is unwarranted if you actually read the reason why it doesn't apply to The Creator.
 Posts: 5,032 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 7:06:26 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 6:13:18 PM, Reprobation wrote:Logically speaking, it is 50/50. That's a false analogy. There are aspects which can affect the winning lottery ticket, seeing as how there are a multitude of them. The universe has only two options: non-existence or existence. 1/2=50%.You said that "nobody knows if the universe can't create itself". The proof for the universe having a beginning still holds.I agree. Logically speaking, it is 50/50 as to the probability of the universe existing. But, logcally speaking, it is 50/50 as to the probability of you getting the winning lottery ticket, as opposed to the losing lottery ticket as well.And thats where your argument fails. The probability of this universe, coming into existance by pure chance, isnt simply "The universe exists or it doesnt", just like the winning lottery ticket chance isnt simply "Either you get the winning ticket or you don't". Its essentially a false dichotomy; you are perpetrating two possibilities, one being "This universe in its current state, exists as is", or "no universe exists", while discounting the possibility of a universe that isn't at all like this one, existing as well. In essence, the chance is one in a billion trillion trillion, probably nearing infinity.In terms of the lottery ticket probability scenario, you have one winning lottery ticket, and a billion trillion trillion lottery tickets that all lost.You have oversimplified it as simply "It exists or it doesnt exist", when in reality, the chances are much greater.That is why your argument fails.
 Posts: 5,032 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 7:08:06 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 6:20:25 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 6:14:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:Infinity doesn't pose any inherent contradictions. Posing logically contradictory scenerios does not negate infinity.There is no evidence that the Universe had a beginning.No one said the Universe creates itself. Although, it's true, the Universe cannot create itself (because a thing cannot be the cause of itself, this poses a blatant logical contradiction). However, what if the Universe is just eternal AND self-existent. There is no need for a creator or cause for a Universe when it is self-existent and eternal.Also, if you say that that is not possible for the Universe and that only God can have those ontological attributes, then you are committing a special pleading fallacy.Did you even read the whole post? The special pleading fallacy is unwarranted if you actually read the reason why it doesn't apply to The Creator.No no, if the universe is infinite, then there is no beginning. You seem to be especially absent-minded on this subject, so i will bold the areas that need attention from now on.
 Posts: 16 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 7:34:13 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 7:08:06 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 6:20:25 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 6:14:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:Infinity doesn't pose any inherent contradictions. Posing logically contradictory scenerios does not negate infinity.There is no evidence that the Universe had a beginning.No one said the Universe creates itself. Although, it's true, the Universe cannot create itself (because a thing cannot be the cause of itself, this poses a blatant logical contradiction). However, what if the Universe is just eternal AND self-existent. There is no need for a creator or cause for a Universe when it is self-existent and eternal.Also, if you say that that is not possible for the Universe and that only God can have those ontological attributes, then you are committing a special pleading fallacy.Did you even read the whole post? The special pleading fallacy is unwarranted if you actually read the reason why it doesn't apply to The Creator.No no, if the universe is infinite, then there is no beginning. You seem to be especially absent-minded on this subject, so i will bold the areas that need attention from now on.As I said two or three posts ago, the onus is upon the claimant.I never claimed that the universe has a beginning if it's infinite.
 Posts: 16 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 7:38:11 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 7:06:26 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 6:13:18 PM, Reprobation wrote:Logically speaking, it is 50/50. That's a false analogy. There are aspects which can affect the winning lottery ticket, seeing as how there are a multitude of them. The universe has only two options: non-existence or existence. 1/2=50%.You said that "nobody knows if the universe can't create itself". The proof for the universe having a beginning still holds.I agree. Logically speaking, it is 50/50 as to the probability of the universe existing. But, logcally speaking, it is 50/50 as to the probability of you getting the winning lottery ticket, as opposed to the losing lottery ticket as well.And thats where your argument fails. The probability of this universe, coming into existance by pure chance, isnt simply "The universe exists or it doesnt", just like the winning lottery ticket chance isnt simply "Either you get the winning ticket or you don't". Its essentially a false dichotomy; you are perpetrating two possibilities, one being "This universe in its current state, exists as is", or "no universe exists", while discounting the possibility of a universe that isn't at all like this one, existing as well. In essence, the chance is one in a billion trillion trillion, probably nearing infinity.In terms of the lottery ticket probability scenario, you have one winning lottery ticket, and a billion trillion trillion lottery tickets that all lost.You have oversimplified it as simply "It exists or it doesnt exist", when in reality, the chances are much greater.That is why your argument fails.Look up the false analogy fallacy, please.It's not a 50/50 chance of me winning the lottery ticket, unless there are TWO lottery tickets. No, but there are a manifold of lottery tickets, hence the analogy is fallacious.If you agree, then why try to discredit my post, otherwise, are you not contradicting yourself by saying that you agree then disagree?You never confuted the initial post.
 Posts: 239 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 7:54:11 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 5:30:41 PM, Reprobation wrote:A thing cannot create itself. Whatever is non-existent is incapable of doing anything, much less allegedly "create itself". The action itself is dependent upon the existence of that thing in the first place. Furthermore, to claim, for instance, that God created itself, entails two contradictions simultaneously: It would be like claiming that God existed before and after itself to create itself. This also breaks the Law of Non-Contradiction, which is "the basic law of logic which states that it is not possible for something to be and not be at the same time".
 Posts: 5,032 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 8:14:42 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 7:34:13 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 7:08:06 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 6:20:25 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 6:14:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:Infinity doesn't pose any inherent contradictions. Posing logically contradictory scenerios does not negate infinity.There is no evidence that the Universe had a beginning.No one said the Universe creates itself. Although, it's true, the Universe cannot create itself (because a thing cannot be the cause of itself, this poses a blatant logical contradiction). However, what if the Universe is just eternal AND self-existent. There is no need for a creator or cause for a Universe when it is self-existent and eternal.Also, if you say that that is not possible for the Universe and that only God can have those ontological attributes, then you are committing a special pleading fallacy.Did you even read the whole post? The special pleading fallacy is unwarranted if you actually read the reason why it doesn't apply to The Creator.No no, if the universe is infinite, then there is no beginning. You seem to be especially absent-minded on this subject, so i will bold the areas that need attention from now on.As I said two or three posts ago, the onus is upon the claimant.I never claimed that the universe has a beginning if it's infinite.No no, im not claiming that the universe has a beginning or that it is infinite. But you are discounting the possibility that it is infinite. That is why your argument fails.
 Posts: 5,032 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 8:16:40 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 7:38:11 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 7:06:26 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 6:13:18 PM, Reprobation wrote:Logically speaking, it is 50/50. That's a false analogy. There are aspects which can affect the winning lottery ticket, seeing as how there are a multitude of them. The universe has only two options: non-existence or existence. 1/2=50%.You said that "nobody knows if the universe can't create itself". The proof for the universe having a beginning still holds.I agree. Logically speaking, it is 50/50 as to the probability of the universe existing. But, logcally speaking, it is 50/50 as to the probability of you getting the winning lottery ticket, as opposed to the losing lottery ticket as well.And thats where your argument fails. The probability of this universe, coming into existance by pure chance, isnt simply "The universe exists or it doesnt", just like the winning lottery ticket chance isnt simply "Either you get the winning ticket or you don't". Its essentially a false dichotomy; you are perpetrating two possibilities, one being "This universe in its current state, exists as is", or "no universe exists", while discounting the possibility of a universe that isn't at all like this one, existing as well. In essence, the chance is one in a billion trillion trillion, probably nearing infinity.In terms of the lottery ticket probability scenario, you have one winning lottery ticket, and a billion trillion trillion lottery tickets that all lost.You have oversimplified it as simply "It exists or it doesnt exist", when in reality, the chances are much greater.That is why your argument fails.Look up the false analogy fallacy, please.It's not a 50/50 chance of me winning the lottery ticket, unless there are TWO lottery tickets. No, but there are a manifold of lottery tickets, hence the analogy is fallacious.If you agree, then why try to discredit my post, otherwise, are you not contradicting yourself by saying that you agree then disagree?You never confuted the initial post.I COMPLETELY AGREE.Are there only two options? Is it only this universe, or no universe? Are there no other forms, no other possible universes out there? This is my point exactly. You dont know that this is the only possible form, that the universe can exist as. This is the problem with your argument.
 Posts: 16 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 8:24:04 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 8:14:42 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 7:34:13 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 7:08:06 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 6:20:25 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 6:14:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:Infinity doesn't pose any inherent contradictions. Posing logically contradictory scenerios does not negate infinity.There is no evidence that the Universe had a beginning.No one said the Universe creates itself. Although, it's true, the Universe cannot create itself (because a thing cannot be the cause of itself, this poses a blatant logical contradiction). However, what if the Universe is just eternal AND self-existent. There is no need for a creator or cause for a Universe when it is self-existent and eternal.Also, if you say that that is not possible for the Universe and that only God can have those ontological attributes, then you are committing a special pleading fallacy.Did you even read the whole post? The special pleading fallacy is unwarranted if you actually read the reason why it doesn't apply to The Creator.No no, if the universe is infinite, then there is no beginning. You seem to be especially absent-minded on this subject, so i will bold the areas that need attention from now on.As I said two or three posts ago, the onus is upon the claimant.I never claimed that the universe has a beginning if it's infinite.No no, im not claiming that the universe has a beginning or that it is infinite. But you are discounting the possibility that it is infinite. That is why your argument fails.Yes I am, because I logically confuted the erroneous proposition.
 Posts: 5,032 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 8:32:53 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 8:24:04 PM, Reprobation wrote:Yes I am, because I logically confuted the erroneous proposition.No, you havent. As Geo said, there is nothing logically contradictory about infinity.But if it is, prove me wrong. Tell me, what exactly about infinity, is logically contradictory? please, tell.
 Posts: 16 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 8:54:09 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 8:16:40 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 7:38:11 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 7:06:26 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 6:13:18 PM, Reprobation wrote:Logically speaking, it is 50/50. That's a false analogy. There are aspects which can affect the winning lottery ticket, seeing as how there are a multitude of them. The universe has only two options: non-existence or existence. 1/2=50%.You said that "nobody knows if the universe can't create itself". The proof for the universe having a beginning still holds.I agree. Logically speaking, it is 50/50 as to the probability of the universe existing. But, logcally speaking, it is 50/50 as to the probability of you getting the winning lottery ticket, as opposed to the losing lottery ticket as well.And thats where your argument fails. The probability of this universe, coming into existance by pure chance, isnt simply "The universe exists or it doesnt", just like the winning lottery ticket chance isnt simply "Either you get the winning ticket or you don't". Its essentially a false dichotomy; you are perpetrating two possibilities, one being "This universe in its current state, exists as is", or "no universe exists", while discounting the possibility of a universe that isn't at all like this one, existing as well. In essence, the chance is one in a billion trillion trillion, probably nearing infinity.In terms of the lottery ticket probability scenario, you have one winning lottery ticket, and a billion trillion trillion lottery tickets that all lost.You have oversimplified it as simply "It exists or it doesnt exist", when in reality, the chances are much greater.That is why your argument fails.Look up the false analogy fallacy, please.It's not a 50/50 chance of me winning the lottery ticket, unless there are TWO lottery tickets. No, but there are a manifold of lottery tickets, hence the analogy is fallacious.If you agree, then why try to discredit my post, otherwise, are you not contradicting yourself by saying that you agree then disagree?You never confuted the initial post.I COMPLETELY AGREE.Are there only two options? Is it only this universe, or no universe? Are there no other forms, no other possible universes out there? This is my point exactly. You dont know that this is the only possible form, that the universe can exist as. This is the problem with your argument.Possible form? Change/transformation itself entails the thing to have a beginning. If you claim that it changes from one form to another, then you are implicitly saying that it has a beginning. When I say the universe, I mean everything.
 Posts: 16 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 8:56:55 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 8:32:53 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 8:24:04 PM, Reprobation wrote:Yes I am, because I logically confuted the erroneous proposition.No, you havent. As Geo said, there is nothing logically contradictory about infinity.But if it is, prove me wrong. Tell me, what exactly about infinity, is logically contradictory? please, tell.Geo obviously didn't read the whole post, since he/she accused me of some kind of pleading fallacy. Geo said "Posing logically contradictory scenerios does not negate infinity". What does this mean? He/she is saying a contradiction in an argument does not disprove that which is disputed for. A contradiction is what destroys the argument.
 Posts: 5,032 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 9:05:56 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 8:54:09 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 8:16:40 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 7:38:11 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 7:06:26 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 6:13:18 PM, Reprobation wrote:Logically speaking, it is 50/50. That's a false analogy. There are aspects which can affect the winning lottery ticket, seeing as how there are a multitude of them. The universe has only two options: non-existence or existence. 1/2=50%.You said that "nobody knows if the universe can't create itself". The proof for the universe having a beginning still holds.I agree. Logically speaking, it is 50/50 as to the probability of the universe existing. But, logcally speaking, it is 50/50 as to the probability of you getting the winning lottery ticket, as opposed to the losing lottery ticket as well.And thats where your argument fails. The probability of this universe, coming into existance by pure chance, isnt simply "The universe exists or it doesnt", just like the winning lottery ticket chance isnt simply "Either you get the winning ticket or you don't". Its essentially a false dichotomy; you are perpetrating two possibilities, one being "This universe in its current state, exists as is", or "no universe exists", while discounting the possibility of a universe that isn't at all like this one, existing as well. In essence, the chance is one in a billion trillion trillion, probably nearing infinity.In terms of the lottery ticket probability scenario, you have one winning lottery ticket, and a billion trillion trillion lottery tickets that all lost.You have oversimplified it as simply "It exists or it doesnt exist", when in reality, the chances are much greater.That is why your argument fails.Look up the false analogy fallacy, please.It's not a 50/50 chance of me winning the lottery ticket, unless there are TWO lottery tickets. No, but there are a manifold of lottery tickets, hence the analogy is fallacious.If you agree, then why try to discredit my post, otherwise, are you not contradicting yourself by saying that you agree then disagree?You never confuted the initial post.I COMPLETELY AGREE.Are there only two options? Is it only this universe, or no universe? Are there no other forms, no other possible universes out there? This is my point exactly. You dont know that this is the only possible form, that the universe can exist as. This is the problem with your argument.Possible form? Change/transformation itself entails the thing to have a beginning. If you claim that it changes from one form to another, then you are implicitly saying that it has a beginning. When I say the universe, I mean everything.No no, not change form. I never said anything about the universe changing form. I am implicitly saying that if the universe was eternal, but in a DIFFERENT FORM(I.E. NOT THE UNIVERSE WE CURRENTLY KNOW, BUT A DIFFERENT TYPE OF UNIVERSE), then your false dichotomy of 2 options is utterly decimated.And yeah, i mean everything too. What did you think i was talking about? Some sort of microverse inside our universe?
 Posts: 5,032 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 9:08:50 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 8:56:55 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 8:32:53 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 8:24:04 PM, Reprobation wrote:Yes I am, because I logically confuted the erroneous proposition.No, you havent. As Geo said, there is nothing logically contradictory about infinity.But if it is, prove me wrong. Tell me, what exactly about infinity, is logically contradictory? please, tell.Geo obviously didn't read the whole post, since he/she accused me of some kind of pleading fallacy. Geo said "Posing logically contradictory scenerios does not negate infinity". What does this mean? He/she is saying a contradiction in an argument does not disprove that which is disputed for. A contradiction is what destroys the argument.The problem, can be summed up by an example.There is nothing that is contradictory in the following sentence, "It is raining". That sentence alone, has no contradictions. However, you can create a scenario that presents that as a contradiction by, for example, pointing out that it is NOT raining. Pointing that out, however, does nothing to contradict the original sentence, because the original sentence has no contradictons.The same thing is applied to infinity. Sorry, but you still fail.
 Posts: 16 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 9:22:57 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 9:05:56 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 8:54:09 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 8:16:40 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 7:38:11 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 7:06:26 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 6:13:18 PM, Reprobation wrote:Logically speaking, it is 50/50. That's a false analogy. There are aspects which can affect the winning lottery ticket, seeing as how there are a multitude of them. The universe has only two options: non-existence or existence. 1/2=50%.You said that "nobody knows if the universe can't create itself". The proof for the universe having a beginning still holds.I agree. Logically speaking, it is 50/50 as to the probability of the universe existing. But, logcally speaking, it is 50/50 as to the probability of you getting the winning lottery ticket, as opposed to the losing lottery ticket as well.And thats where your argument fails. The probability of this universe, coming into existance by pure chance, isnt simply "The universe exists or it doesnt", just like the winning lottery ticket chance isnt simply "Either you get the winning ticket or you don't". Its essentially a false dichotomy; you are perpetrating two possibilities, one being "This universe in its current state, exists as is", or "no universe exists", while discounting the possibility of a universe that isn't at all like this one, existing as well. In essence, the chance is one in a billion trillion trillion, probably nearing infinity.In terms of the lottery ticket probability scenario, you have one winning lottery ticket, and a billion trillion trillion lottery tickets that all lost.You have oversimplified it as simply "It exists or it doesnt exist", when in reality, the chances are much greater.That is why your argument fails.Look up the false analogy fallacy, please.It's not a 50/50 chance of me winning the lottery ticket, unless there are TWO lottery tickets. No, but there are a manifold of lottery tickets, hence the analogy is fallacious.If you agree, then why try to discredit my post, otherwise, are you not contradicting yourself by saying that you agree then disagree?You never confuted the initial post.I COMPLETELY AGREE.Are there only two options? Is it only this universe, or no universe? Are there no other forms, no other possible universes out there? This is my point exactly. You dont know that this is the only possible form, that the universe can exist as. This is the problem with your argument.Possible form? Change/transformation itself entails the thing to have a beginning. If you claim that it changes from one form to another, then you are implicitly saying that it has a beginning. When I say the universe, I mean everything.No no, not change form. I never said anything about the universe changing form. I am implicitly saying that if the universe was eternal, but in a DIFFERENT FORM(I.E. NOT THE UNIVERSE WE CURRENTLY KNOW, BUT A DIFFERENT TYPE OF UNIVERSE), then your false dichotomy of 2 options is utterly decimated.And yeah, i mean everything too. What did you think i was talking about? Some sort of microverse inside our universe?It doesn't matter whether you mean in a "different form". If it changes and contains time, then it has a beginning.
 Posts: 16 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 9:28:49 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 9:08:50 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 8:56:55 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 8:32:53 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 8:24:04 PM, Reprobation wrote:Yes I am, because I logically confuted the erroneous proposition.No, you havent. As Geo said, there is nothing logically contradictory about infinity.But if it is, prove me wrong. Tell me, what exactly about infinity, is logically contradictory? please, tell.Geo obviously didn't read the whole post, since he/she accused me of some kind of pleading fallacy. Geo said "Posing logically contradictory scenerios does not negate infinity". What does this mean? He/she is saying a contradiction in an argument does not disprove that which is disputed for. A contradiction is what destroys the argument.The problem, can be summed up by an example.There is nothing that is contradictory in the following sentence, "It is raining". That sentence alone, has no contradictions. However, you can create a scenario that presents that as a contradiction by, for example, pointing out that it is NOT raining. Pointing that out, however, does nothing to contradict the original sentence, because the original sentence has no contradictons.The same thing is applied to infinity. Sorry, but you still fail.You said that "you can create a scenario that presents that as a contradiction"...then you say it "does nothing to contradict the original sentence".
 Posts: 5,032 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 9:30:59 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 9:22:57 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 9:05:56 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 8:54:09 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 8:16:40 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 7:38:11 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 7:06:26 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 6:13:18 PM, Reprobation wrote:Logically speaking, it is 50/50. That's a false analogy. There are aspects which can affect the winning lottery ticket, seeing as how there are a multitude of them. The universe has only two options: non-existence or existence. 1/2=50%.You said that "nobody knows if the universe can't create itself". The proof for the universe having a beginning still holds.I agree. Logically speaking, it is 50/50 as to the probability of the universe existing. But, logcally speaking, it is 50/50 as to the probability of you getting the winning lottery ticket, as opposed to the losing lottery ticket as well.And thats where your argument fails. The probability of this universe, coming into existance by pure chance, isnt simply "The universe exists or it doesnt", just like the winning lottery ticket chance isnt simply "Either you get the winning ticket or you don't". Its essentially a false dichotomy; you are perpetrating two possibilities, one being "This universe in its current state, exists as is", or "no universe exists", while discounting the possibility of a universe that isn't at all like this one, existing as well. In essence, the chance is one in a billion trillion trillion, probably nearing infinity.In terms of the lottery ticket probability scenario, you have one winning lottery ticket, and a billion trillion trillion lottery tickets that all lost.You have oversimplified it as simply "It exists or it doesnt exist", when in reality, the chances are much greater.That is why your argument fails.Look up the false analogy fallacy, please.It's not a 50/50 chance of me winning the lottery ticket, unless there are TWO lottery tickets. No, but there are a manifold of lottery tickets, hence the analogy is fallacious.If you agree, then why try to discredit my post, otherwise, are you not contradicting yourself by saying that you agree then disagree?You never confuted the initial post.I COMPLETELY AGREE.Are there only two options? Is it only this universe, or no universe? Are there no other forms, no other possible universes out there? This is my point exactly. You dont know that this is the only possible form, that the universe can exist as. This is the problem with your argument.Possible form? Change/transformation itself entails the thing to have a beginning. If you claim that it changes from one form to another, then you are implicitly saying that it has a beginning. When I say the universe, I mean everything.No no, not change form. I never said anything about the universe changing form. I am implicitly saying that if the universe was eternal, but in a DIFFERENT FORM(I.E. NOT THE UNIVERSE WE CURRENTLY KNOW, BUT A DIFFERENT TYPE OF UNIVERSE), then your false dichotomy of 2 options is utterly decimated.And yeah, i mean everything too. What did you think i was talking about? Some sort of microverse inside our universe?It doesn't matter whether you mean in a "different form". If it changes and contains time, then it has a beginning.I never said Change, or change form, or anything with word "Change" in it. Do you understand english?If the universe has existed for all eternity in another form(NO CHANGE of any sort), then congrats, that is another universe that is different from this one, and therefore there are more options than simply "This universe exists/doesnt exist".Therefore your argument fails.Again.Sincerely,Tkubok.
 Posts: 5,032 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2011 9:39:56 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 9:28:49 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 9:08:50 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 8:56:55 PM, Reprobation wrote:At 4/5/2011 8:32:53 PM, tkubok wrote:At 4/5/2011 8:24:04 PM, Reprobation wrote:Yes I am, because I logically confuted the erroneous proposition.No, you havent. As Geo said, there is nothing logically contradictory about infinity.But if it is, prove me wrong. Tell me, what exactly about infinity, is logically contradictory? please, tell.Geo obviously didn't read the whole post, since he/she accused me of some kind of pleading fallacy. Geo said "Posing logically contradictory scenerios does not negate infinity". What does this mean? He/she is saying a contradiction in an argument does not disprove that which is disputed for. A contradiction is what destroys the argument.The problem, can be summed up by an example.There is nothing that is contradictory in the following sentence, "It is raining". That sentence alone, has no contradictions. However, you can create a scenario that presents that as a contradiction by, for example, pointing out that it is NOT raining. Pointing that out, however, does nothing to contradict the original sentence, because the original sentence has no contradictons.The same thing is applied to infinity. Sorry, but you still fail.You said that "you can create a scenario that presents that as a contradiction"...then you say it "does nothing to contradict the original sentence".Yes, because there is nothing INHERENTLY contradictory within that sentence.Its like the phrase, "Murder is wrong". On any day of the week, ill be happy to agree with that. But then, you can make a scenario where murder is not only right, but sometimes necessary.
 Posts: 6,160 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/6/2011 5:16:19 AMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/5/2011 5:30:41 PM, Reprobation wrote:I) The universe could not have been a "product of chance".Logically, there is an equal probability of the universe existing vis a vis its not existing (It is as someone may say 50/50). Existence will not give itself preponderance over non-existence except by being designated with it, by other than itself, i.e., it is dependent upon being designated with existence.You're never going to convince these guys logically; the're way too smart and educated..This is a war of attrition: they continually think of new ways of to try to irritate us and 'offend us out' of the picture (Dawkins, Hitchens et al are masters of this and NOTHING else; hence their position) and WE continually sanctify them by continually forgiving (washing their feet) and bearing with them in love, patience and tolerance.. that the good Lord may have mercy on them and open their eyes..John 4:35Do you not say, ‘Four months more and then the harvest'? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest.The Cross.. the Cross.
 Posts: 239 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/6/2011 10:09:13 AMPosted: 5 years agoAt 4/6/2011 5:16:19 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:At 4/5/2011 5:30:41 PM, Reprobation wrote:I) God could not have been a "product of chance".Logically, there is an equal probability of the universe existing vis a vis its not existing (It is as someone may say 50/50). Existence will not give itself preponderance over non-existence except by being designated with it, by other than itself, i.e., it is dependent upon being designated with existence.You're never going to convince these guys logically; the're way too smart and educated..This is a war of attrition: they continually think of new ways of to try to irritate us and 'offend us out' of the picture (Dawkins, Hitchens et al are masters of this and NOTHING else; hence their position) and WE continually sanctify them by continually forgiving (washing their feet) and bearing with them in love, patience and tolerance.. that the good Lord may have mercy on them and open their eyes..John 4:35Do you not say, ‘Four months more and then the harvest'? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest.Look at what I did
© 2016 Debate.org. All rights reserved.