Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Commoner]

Response: To the contrary, the question I pose is within itself adressing the question as to whether or not physical reality is a creation, for the question I posed is asking for you to explain how the things around you came into existence. I never stated that everything was created, but rather asking how it came to be. However, once we do analyze everything around us, the answer to the question is obvious. And that is that everything is in fact a creation from a creator.

How so? It is not obviuos to me.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

". . . for the question I posed is asking for you to explain how the things around you came into existence. . ."

That question contains an unspoken (and unproven) assumption. To wit: That at some time "things" didn't exist. Why assume that?

 

[Fatihah]

How so? It is not obviuos to me.

Response: Can you point to anything around you that is not a creation from a creator? If so, what.

 

[Fatihah]

". . . for the question I posed is asking for you to explain how the things around you came into existence. . ."

That question contains an unspoken (and unproven) assumption. To wit: That at some time "things" didn't exist. Why assume that?

Response: Why assume that I made an assumption? I never made any assumption. I'm asking the question as to in what other way can something come into existence other than it being created from a creator. There's no assumption anywhere. It's a question. You're making the assumption.

 

[Commoner]

Response: Why assume that I made an assumption? I never made any assumption. I'm asking the question as to in what other way can something come into existence other than it being created from a creator. There's no assumption anywhere. It's a question. You're making the assumption.

I have to agree, the assumption is there. In your question, you're already presuming "something has come into existence".

 

[Commoner]

Response: Can you point to anything around you that is not a creation from a creator? If so, what.

Sure, I just picked up a rock not too long ago.

 

[Fatihah]

I have to agree, the assumption is there. In your question, you're already assuming "something has come into existence".

Response: Unless the words, "I assume" or anything synonymous to those words are in my post, than you can agree if you like, but the proof is non-existant.

 

[Fatihah]

Sure, I just picked up a rock not too long ago.

Response: So if the rock was not created, how did it come into existence? Or was the rock always here?

 

[McBell]

*climbs onto pontoon boat*

opcorn:

 

[Commoner]

Response: So if the rock was not created, how did it come into existence? Or was the rock always here?

I don't know.

 

[Alceste]

Logic and reason are often greater components of creativity and imagination than people realize. I think it's a false dichotomy.

And creative imagination is often a greater component of logic and reason than people realize. I never meant to imply that the two modes of thinking operate totally independently of each other. I simply meant that it's important to be able to distinguish one from the other, at least conceptually, and that insofar as we are able to do this, our culture overvalues logic and reason.

My ideas on the subject are mostly the result of reading this book:



It's a pretty good book, if you like that sort of thing. I know it looks a bit like one of those intolerable Corporate 80's books with words like "Excellence!" in the title, but it really isn't. It's very informative, intelligent, evidence-based and well-written.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Response: Why assume that I made an assumption? I never made any assumption. I'm asking the question as to in what other way can something come into existence other than it being created from a creator. There's no assumption anywhere. It's a question. You're making the assumption.

No, I am not. Your question rests on an unspoken assumption. That "things" came into existence. That fact is not proven. Maybe "things" always existed and always will. Maybe the only changes ever are in what form "things" take.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Response: So if the rock was not created, how did it come into existence? Or was the rock always here?

Rocks are simply formed from the combining of different chemicals and molecules and along with some heat and pressure as far as I am aware. Being composed of energy, they can neither be created nor destroyed, only change form.

 

[themadhair]

Fatihah does seem to be very fond of the word ‘creation’.

The idea is that by describing something as a ‘creation’ the notion of a creator can easily be slipped in. Fatihah hopes to avoid having to justify that things are actually ‘creations’. Until Fatihah can either demonstrate such, or at least provide a cogent argument for it, then there is only one response need be made – “That’s a statement. Where’s the proof?” You should note that Fatihah will never ever justify why the label of ‘creation’ will not apply to allah (a case of special pleading).

It is interesting to me that both PureX and Fatihah are essentially committing the same logical fallacy here. There are attempting to place labels (PureX with ‘god’ and Fatihah with ‘creation’) onto things so they don’t have to justify that those things possess the qualities implied by those labels. Labelling the unknown as ‘god’ or labelling things as being ‘creations’ is presupposing a whole shed load of things – and both do not realise that what they are presenting is simply a semantic sleight of hand.

 

[Fatihah]

No, I am not. Your question rests on an unspoken assumption. That "things" came into existence. That fact is not proven. Maybe "things" always existed and always will. Maybe the only changes ever are in what form "things" take.

Response: Since you can neither quote me saying "I assume" or anything synonymous to it, then the problem simply lies on your lack of comprehension. For a statement can't mean something if the words you claim it means are neither there, nor is there anything synonymous. This is simple english.

 

[Fatihah]

Fatihah does seem to be very fond of the word ‘creation’.

The idea is that by describing something as a ‘creation’ the notion of a creator can easily be slipped in. Fatihah hopes to avoid having to justify that things are actually ‘creations’. Until Fatihah can either demonstrate such, or at least provide a cogent argument for it, then there is only one response need be made – “That’s a statement. Where’s the proof?” You should note that Fatihah will never ever justify why the label of ‘creation’ will not apply to allah (a case of special pleading).

It is interesting to me that both PureX and Fatihah are essentially committing the same logical fallacy here. There are attempting to place labels (PureX with ‘god’ and Fatihah with ‘creation’) onto things so they don’t have to justify that those things possess the qualities implied by those labels. Labelling the unknown as ‘god’ or labelling things as being ‘creations’ is presupposing a whole shed load of things – and both do not realise that what they are presenting is simply a semantic sleight of hand.

Response: Being that every dictionary on the face of the planet defines the term "creation" the same as I, the only one committing a logical fallacy is you.

 

[Commoner]

Response: Since you can neither quote me saying "I assume" or anything synonymous to it, then the problem simply lies on your lack of comprehension. For a statement can't mean something if the words you claim it means are neither there, nor is there anything synonymous. This is simple english.

Game, set, match!

 

[Runewolf1973]

Sorry guys, I decided to take my last post and put it in it's own thread so that other people could maybe understand my views a little better. Hope that's alright.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I see in my absence people have made the exact same points I would have made. Which is good, as I had an absolutely dreadful day, and that saves me a lot of trouble. So I guess I'll just jump in at the latest development:

Response: Being that every dictionary on the face of the planet defines the term "creation" the same as I, the only one committing a logical fallacy is you.

No, you're still committing the logical fallacy. It's one thing to say "paintings" were created by "painters" as Ray Comfort loves to spout off. We can see painters and we can see them paint things. It's an experience we are at the very least vaguely familiar, but familiar enough that we know how paintings are made.

But what about the subatomic particles that make up the universe? You only say Allah created these without offering your proof. You have not shown me any evidence that would point to a cause of them. You assume everything has been created. And then you assume everything has a creator. You offer no evidence.

And then from a weakly supported assumption and an unsupported one, you feel you have come up with the trump of all arguments "Allah created everything". No, you are still the one committing the logical fallacy until you can explain the causes of those subatomic particles.

 

[Copernicus]

Response: To the contrary, the question I pose is within itself adressing the question as to whether or not physical reality is a creation, for the question I posed is asking for you to explain how the things around you came into existence...

Fatihah, you are approaching this question from the point of view of presuppositional apologetics, although I suspect that you may be unfamiliar with that term. That is, you make statements and ask questions as if there were no other point of view possible than that God/Allah exists, even when the question is whether God/Allah exists. That is viciously circular reasoning, and that is why it is called "begging the question". In circular reasoning, the claim one asserts is always "within itself".

...I never stated that everything was created, but rather asking how it came to be. However, once we do analyze everything around us, the answer to the question is obvious. And that is that everything is in fact a creation from a creator.

Again, I agree that creations always have a creator. The question you are begging is whether everything around us qualifies as a "creation". Everything around us may well have a cause, but that is not the same thing as assuming that it is a creation.

BTW, I suspect that you aren't really going to engage this argument seriously other than to just repeat yourself no matter what anyone else says. However, it is worth pointing out that presuppositions are defined as unstated assumptions. So your argument that you never said "I assume..." once again misses the point.