It All Comes Down to Faith

[OmarKhayyam]

Assuming you mean an assumption *that has* no supporting evidence and considerable counter evidence --no, there can be no counter evidence either.

Only in the most superficial sense.

I assert the owl that comes often to a tree in my yard IS Athena. My evidence is my proven observation that what I write AFTER the owl appears is better than what I write during times when it is not present. And my support for that assertion is MY evaluation of what I have produced.

OK, that IS evidence. But you would not consider it at all conclusive or even really supportive of the owl = Athena proposition.

And if I continue to assert it and build a little shrine to Athena and burn meat on it in her honor you would suggest I seek professional help. This despite the fact that what I produce under the owl's influence is listed on the NYT bestseller list.

So there would be "evidence" for my assertion. But you would consider it neither conclusive nor even supportive. My bald assertion the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Willamena]

Only in the most superficial sense.

I assert the owl that comes often to a tree in my yard IS Athena. My evidence is my proven observation that what I write AFTER the owl appears is better than what I write during times when it is not present. And my support for that assertion is MY evaluation of what I have produced.

OK, that IS evidence. But you would not consider it at all conclusive or even really supportive of the owl = Athena proposition.

And if I continue to assert it and build a little shrine to Athena and burn meat on it in her honor you would suggest I seek professional help. This despite the fact that what I produce under the owl's influence is listed on the NYT bestseller list.

So there would be "evidence" for my assertion. But you would consider it neither conclusive nor even supportive. My bald assertion the contrary notwithstanding.

So, what I'm hearing is that the owl Athena symbolizes your ability to write better stuff. That is evidence of associative thinking. The symbol itself, the way you've stated it, requires no evidence to BE Athena. It IS Athena, by assignment.

But you've not countered that counter evidence only counters evidence, which is what I assert. (In fact, you seem to support it.)

 

[Falvlun]

The fact that you need me to supply you with an alternative argument is evident enough that you don't have one, thus proving my stance on the subject despite your response below trying to say otherwise.

Reread madhair's post 139, and my post 206. We both provided an alternative argument.

The alternative argument is simply, no science even needed: The universe always existed.

 

[sojourner]

And THAT is just meaningless gibberish. What the Hell is "absolute identity"? You think are you 2 people? One gets a DL and ones a ticket to eternal life?

Just because you fail to understand it doesn't make it "meaningless gibberish." Your understanding is not the standard by which humanity judges either its intellect or its spiritual awareness.
Thank God.

 

[themadhair]

If you are claiming another way in which something can exists besides the act of it being a creation from a creator, it is for you to bring it forth, not me.

Do snowflakes need a creator? No? Then, by your logic, such things cannot possible exist. When you make unfounded assumptions about the world and how it operates, Fatihah, it is often the case that things within the world show those assumptions to be false. You are arguing for a cause, not for a creator. I have repeatedly linked to the relevant thread on this:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html

To make it seem irrational because I won't supply you with an argument to help you argue with me instead of you presenting your argument yourself is just simply unheard of and absurd.

But Fatihah, to make a claim and then fail to provide any argumentation for that claim is irrational. The fact that I linked to a paper providing an argument against your claim, while you still refused to present an argument in support of your claim, shows just how ridiculous you are being here. Assuming things does not make them true Fatihah.

The fact that you need me to supply you with an alternative argument is evident enough that you don't have one, thus proving my stance on the subject despite your response below trying to say otherwise.

I’m not asking you to provide an alternative argument. I’m asking to provide an actual argument. You are claiming that the universe is a creation requiring a creator – I am now asking you to provide an argument for that claim. Declaring an assumption isn’t presenting an argument – it is simply declaring an assumption.

And that alternative argument has already been presented (i.e. the universe always existed):
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0611246

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:Falvlun]Reread madhair's post 139, and my post 206. We both provided an alternative argument.

The alternative argument is simply, no science even needed: The universe always existed.[/QUOTE]

Response: Then if it's logical to say that the universe always existed and thus has no creator, then it shouldn't be far fetched to say that there is a deity who was always here and not created as well. And as you say, no science needed. To say otherwise would be hypocritical. The logic works both ways.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:themadhair]Do snowflakes need a creator? No?

Response: Yes. Snowflakes do have an origin and they are created, thus having a creator. They are not without a beginning. How you've managed not to know this is beyond me. But it does supply more evidence of your type of reasoning and any reasonable person can see just how sensible your reasoning is.

Quote: themadhair
Then, by your logic, such things cannot possible exist. When you make unfounded assumptions about the world and how it operates, Fatihah, it is often the case that things within the world show those assumptions to be false. You are arguing for a cause, not for a creator. I have repeatedly linked to the relevant thread on this:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html

Response: It is very convenient for you to claim that I'm arguing something in which I'm not in an effort to distract the conversation from the fact that you can't produce a concept of something existing by any other concept than it being a creation from a creator. Your link above is an example of creating. You insisting it to be otherwise does not change the fact that it is. Your explanation(s) to show otherwise doesn't change the fact either.

Quote: themadhair
I’m not asking you to provide an alternative argument. I’m asking to provide an actual argument. You are claiming that the universe is a creation requiring a creator – I am now asking you to provide an argument for that claim. Declaring an assumption isn’t presenting an argument – it is simply declaring an assumption.

Response: My claim is my argument. But you have opted to become a spin artist and make a play on words to paint a picture of my words saying something else by saying that I'm making a claim but no argument when they both are the same. A fact that you are confirming by responding with a link to disprove my argument. If I'm not presenting an argument, what is your link responding to? It's responding to "my argument" as to whether there is any other concept of something existing than it being a creation from a creator. If there isn't, then the concept of the universe and life itself must be a creation from a creator. Your link was to "allegedly" provide the answer to the contrary. So you're claiming that I've presented no argument and responding to it at the same time. But let me save you the trouble. I know your response. You're responding to my "claim" but not the "argument" right?
Yes, anyone can see the play on words.

 

[themadhair]

Response: Yes. Snowflakes do have an origin and they are created, thus having a creator.

Is creator the same as cause? No it isn’t. Who is the creator of a snowflake? To be frank you are trying to shoehorn in an equivocation here. I don’t intend to let do so.

Response: It is very convenient for you to claim that I'm arguing something in which I'm not in an effort to distract the conversation from the fact that you can't produce a concept of something existing by any other concept than it being a creation from a creator.

The reason I’m being so anal here is because it is very obvious that you are attempting to equate ‘cause’ with ‘creator’ in order to set up the equivocation of ‘creator’ with ‘god’. And yes, the following thread does tackle the very equivocation you are attempting to pull off:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html



Quote: themadhair
I’m not asking you to provide an alternative argument. I’m asking to provide an actual argument. You are claiming that the universe is a creation requiring a creator – I am now asking you to provide an argument for that claim. Declaring an assumption isn’t presenting an argument – it is simply declaring an assumption.

Response: My claim is my argument.

So you have no argument – only a claim. Glad you admitted that.

A fact that you are confirming by responding with a link to disprove my argument.

The link presents a scenario that challenges your claim. In order to evaluate which claim is true it is necessary to present argumentation in favour of both claims. Without an argument to support your claim it can, and should, be dismissed as unfounded assertion. What you claim Fatihah is unfounded assertion.

If I'm not presenting an argument, what is your link responding to?

Your unfounded claim.

So you're claiming that I've presented no argument and responding to it at the same time.

Yes I am. Calling something a ‘creation’ doesn’t make it a ‘creation’. Calling something a ‘creation’ does not make it require a ‘creator’. Those are assertions, not arguments.

You're responding to my "claim" but not the "argument" right?

Yes Fatihah. Even you have acknowledged this with the above. What do you have other than bare-faced unfounded assertion? Nothing so far.

 

[themadhair]

I’m going to use Fatihah logic here.

The universe is the composition of all that exists in reality. Therefore the universe includes god. Because the universe contains god it cannot have been created by god. Therefore the universe has always existed.

Note: The above is simply using the same fallacy of equivocation that Fatihah is using by labelling he universe ‘everything’ rather than a ‘creation’ as Fatihah does.

 

[Falvlun]

Response: Then if it's logical to say that the universe always existed and thus has no creator, then it shouldn't be far fetched to say that there is a deity who was always here and not created as well. And as you say, no science needed. To say otherwise would be hypocritical. The logic works both ways.

So, in other words, you believe my assertion that no Creator is needed is just as valid as your assertion that a Creator is needed. Excellent.

 

[Riverwolf]

See #181

Do try to keep up.

Still unconvinced. This guy is but a priest, stating his views on the world.

No priest or equivalent has the authority to speak for all religions of the world. It takes a higher degree of spiritual enlightenment to do that.

This guy is not authoritative in my opinion, unless or until he is very well versed in the literature and customs of all other major religions. Even after that, he has to fully understand, which takes years of isolation and meditation. He would have to be a Sage. Otherwise, he is just another priest.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:themadhair]Is creator the same as cause? No it isn’t.

Response: Never said it is.

Quote: themadhair
Who is the creator of a snowflake?

Response: Another attempt of sidetracking. You tell me how snowflakes come about and from your own answer you will see the creator.

Quote: themadhair
The link presents a scenario that challenges your claim. In order to evaluate which claim is true it is necessary to present argumentation in favour of both claims. Without an argument to support your claim it can, and should, be dismissed as unfounded assertion. What you claim Fatihah is unfounded assertion.

Response: My claim is my argument. But you have opted to become a spin artist and make a play on words to paint a picture of my words saying something else by saying that I'm making a claim but no argument when they both are the same. A fact that you are confirming by responding with a link to disprove my argument. If I'm not presenting an argument, what is your link responding to?

Quote: themadhair
Your unfounded claim

Response: It's responding to "my argument" as to whether there is any other concept of something existing than it being a creation from a creator. If there isn't, then the concept of the universe and life itself must be a creation from a creator. Your link was to "allegedly" provide the answer to the contrary. So you're claiming that I've presented no argument and responding to it at the same time?

Quote: themadhair
Yes I am.

Response: So now you're admitting that I've presented an argument by saying "yes I am". You just admitted to responding to my argument. But you just said that I didn't present an argument. A flatout contridiction. Once a person contridicts themself, the rest of the logic becomes unreliable.

 

[Fatihah]

I’m going to use Fatihah logic here.

The universe is the composition of all that exists in reality. Therefore the universe includes god. Because the universe contains god it cannot have been created by god. Therefore the universe has always existed.

Note: The above is simply using the same fallacy of equivocation that Fatihah is using by labelling he universe ‘everything’ rather than a ‘creation’ as Fatihah does.

Response: Refer to post 227.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This is like watching Albert Einsten try to explain Special Relativity to Paris Hilton.

 

[themadhair]

Is creator the same as cause? No it isn’t.

Response: Never said it is.

So do accept that the universe can have a cause without a creator (creator being a conscience entity)?

You tell me how snowflakes come about and from your own answer you will see the creator.

Natural processes. To form it is necessary for a sufficient drop in temperature to cause a ‘nucleus’ – to which further water freezes to. Due to the underlying chemical properties of water a significant amount of symmetry occurs giving rise to the familiar snowflake shapes. No consciencesness and no creator involved.

So you're claiming that I've presented no argument and responding to it at the same time?

Claim – an assertion. Argument – a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating the truth of a claim. Notice the difference?

Response: So now you're admitting that I've presented an argument by saying "yes I am".

I misread your sentence. My yes was direct at the first portion ( So you're claiming that I've presented no argument ).

Response: Refer to post 227.

Answered in post 228

 

[themadhair]

The creator is: the underlying properties of water

So you hold the ‘creator’ to be the conscienceless natural processes of nature?

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:themadhair]So do accept that the universe can have a cause without a creator (creator being a conscience entity)?
Response: Cause of what?

Quote: themadhair
Natural processes. To form it is necessary for a sufficient drop in temperature to cause a ‘nucleus’ – to which further water freezes to. Due to the underlying chemical properties of water a significant amount of symmetry occurs giving rise to the familiar snowflake shapes. No consciencesness and no creator involved.

Response: You said, "Due to the underlying chemical properties of water a significant amount of symmetry occurs giving rise to the familiar snowflake shapes".

Exactly my point.

The creator is: the underlying properties of water

Which creates:
a significicant amount of symmetry

Thus creating the creation: a familiar snowflake. Once again proving the concept of a creation coming from a creator. Thank you.

Quote: themadhair
Answered in post 228

Response: Which is answered in post 232

 

[themadhair]

Response: Which is answered in post 232

Which is in turn answered in 235.

 

[Fatihah]

So you hold the ‘creator’ to be the conscienceless natural processes of nature?

Response: No

 

[Fatihah]

Which is in turn answered in 235.

Response: Which is thus answered in 237.