danot Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 My position is that I enjoy watching you flounder; sorry, I know it isn't very charitable and I shouldn't. Bit like rubbernecking at car crashes and such. I'll take a backseat. Or maybe I'll get back to my novel and have a cup of tea. Or start cooking tea. You're not presenting a counterargument though Halibut. All you're doing is posting petty jibes and telling me I'm wrong... as per usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I accept that deductive logic will always deduce that things can exist without having a cause. Whether things without a cause do or don't exist is something science is unable to tell us.. We don't need science for that. Basic thinking is enough. That's the point I was hoping to make, once you've accepted the original basis for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 That is still not a limit to comprehension. It's the current limit of the data. There is always more information to extract from the universe, whether you look inward (LHC) or outward (SKA) - and this endless stream of information has yet to terminally challenge human comprehension. Furthermore, human comprehension is not limited to only scientific understanding. The "no cause" theory isn't attributable to the current data available to us, there is no data which could corroborate the "no cause" theory. The theory is based on deductive logic, not data. What's to say the current method of deductive logic isn't wrong; just has it has been on countless other occasions throughout our history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 It doesn't work that way. We'd be here for ever if we had to disprove everyone's claim. The onus should be on the person making the claim to prove their hypothesis.Well go on then- Prove that the universe magically materialized from nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I intend to explain that, but I have to start with getting you to agree to the original basis for discussion. Statement 1: Things which exist, must have been created by some cause. Statement 2: Things which exist, may do so without having been created by some cause. Are you willing to accept that one or other of those statements must be true, and that there is no third alternative? See post 280. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I would say that God isn't a theory. OK. The creationist 'argument' implicates God. Better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Well go on then- Prove that the universe magically materialized from nowhere. Where has anybody suggested that the universe magically materialised from nowhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 Where has anybody suggested that the universe magically materialised from nowhere? The program i watched suggested it might be the case that all matter in the universe appeared at the same moment , and out of nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 The existence of God or creationism isn't a theory, it's a faith. For the followers of religion it doesn't have to be proved or disproved, it's enough for them for it to be believed. So when are scientists going to prove how the universe can magically materialized from nowhere? Or is them saying it can proof enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 The program i watched suggested it might be the case that all matter in the universe appeared at the same moment , and out of nowhere. That may be the case, but no cosmologist worth listening to would pull a theory out of the sky that was impossible to verify one way or another. Having not watched the TV program in question I cannot comment upon it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.