How I understand Creationism in a logical way

[wizardwatson]

Nothing you said is correct.

Eternity cannot have a beginning, because a beginning relies on temporality (relies on time)
Infinity can have a beginning (but no end) because infinity is defined within the constructs of space and time (which is why I said it's a mathematical concept)

So a ray in physics is infinite with a beginning point

x~~~~~~~>

A line is infinite in both directions

<------------>

Their magnitude is the same, however they both rely on the construct of time. This is why eternity is such a distinct difference from infinite. Eternity has no beginning, has no end, was not created.

Another wordsmith.

"Eternity" doesn't only have the definition of "timelessness". That's not even the first definition in some dicstionaries.

But I'll concede. I should have said "Eternal" where I said, "Eternity", and then everything I said is correct if we're using your definition of "eternity" to mean "a period of time without beginning or end".

And even if we take "Eternal" as in "Eternal Father" to be without beginning, we can't say that word is always applied to something without a beginning because it's also used to describe "eternal life" which obviously for humans, had a beginning.

Anyway, still not sure what you are trying to get across.

God is not a mathematical abstraction, which is all I was really refuting when I said the bible doesn't say God is "infinite". Do you or does anyone else on this thread think you are going to get closer to God by looking in the corners of triangles? Or understand creation better by converting the created things of God to logic statements?

 

[wizardwatson]

Mostly because I feel that there is tremendous human suffering in the world. Some people say "oh I prayed really really hard that my child's illness would go away, and it did!" so god must have intervened.... Meaning God altered the laws of the natural universe specifically in YOUR favor. While at the same time, a thousand other children whose parents were also praying for God to spare THEIR children died a horrible death.

I am left with four possible conclusions:

1. God is unable to help these people = incompetent
2. God is unwilling to help these people = indifferent
3. There is a force that somehow set the universe in motion, but is unable to intervene in its affairs. < I am here currently
4. There is no god.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Isaiah 48:10 Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

The answers to your questions are pretty much in those two verses.

Most people's questions, ESPECIALLY moral questions, are in the bible. You may not like the answers, but they are there.

 

[Muwahid]

Another wordsmith.

"Eternity" doesn't only have the definition of "timelessness". That's not even the first definition in some dicstionaries.

But I'll concede. I should have said "Eternal" where I said, "Eternity", and then everything I said is correct if we're using your definition of "eternity" to mean "a period of time without beginning or end".

And even if we take "Eternal" as in "Eternal Father" to be without beginning, we can't say that word is always applied to something without a beginning because it's also used to describe "eternal life" which obviously for humans, had a beginning.

Anyway, still not sure what you are trying to get across.

God is not a mathematical abstraction, which is all I was really refuting when I said the bible doesn't say God is "infinite". Do you or does anyone else on this thread think you are going to get closer to God by looking in the corners of triangles? Or understand creation better by converting the created things of God to logic statements?

This isn't about being a wordsmith, or using semantics. In order to properly understand peoples points, you must understand the definitions of words they are using, in the context which they are using them--otherwise misunderstandings happen.

Theology. the timeless state into which the soul passes at a person's death.

That's the philosophical definition of eternity.

Also I didn't claim God is infinite, I said he is eternal, so I'm agreeing with you. Infinity is a function of time, its bound to the laws of this universe. Eternity is not, eternity is beyond the natural laws, and thus, the only answer for what God is.

The reason this is important is you cannot explain existence without invoking eternity. So when an atheist invokes natural laws to explain existence, the atheist already lost the argument.

 

[jllundqu]

The answers to your questions are pretty much in those two verses.

Most people's questions, ESPECIALLY moral questions, are in the bible. You may not like the answers, but they are there.

I do not for a moment believe that god came down and authored some books (or had others write them) thousands of years ago. For me, the bible is very simple to disprove and disregard as an immoral text.

 

[Muwahid]

My point was about god not intervening in worldly affairs and there is no evidence that he can, does, or has in the past.

If God cannot intervene he is not omnipotent, and therefore not God in the sense we call him. 1-3 of your conclusions all refute God (as we know a God to be).

Intervention of God is the exception not the rule.

You have to define evidence however. Since his intervention would be supernatural in nature we could never deduce it to be fact, we could rather, only use inductive logic to conclude to most rational explanation is supernaturalism.

For example, Jesus raises a man from the dead, a man known to be dead. This, especially in ancient times where scientific advances could not possibly be the cause, would lead most to believe the most rational conclusion is a supernatural force--if they think this force is godly, they will believe it was intervention from a God.

Religions propagated solely on this type of logic.

Point is even if God did intervene in your life right now, and you really believed something was a miracle of God... you couldn't prove it to anyone else. You could rationalize, but you couldn't prove it.

 

[wizardwatson]

I do not for a moment believe that god came down and authored some books (or had others write them) thousands of years ago. For me, the bible is very simple to disprove and disregard as an immoral text.

Well, I find that people in general are actually much easier to disregard as immoral and ignorant with respect to scientific and philosophical understanding than the bible.

A good portion of those who aren't happen to believe the bible.

Weird.

 

[wizardwatson]

This isn't about being a wordsmith, or using semantics. In order to properly understand peoples points, you must understand the definitions of words they are using, in the context which they are using them--otherwise misunderstandings happen.

That's the philosophical definition of eternity.

Also I didn't claim God is infinite, I said he is eternal, so I'm agreeing with you. Infinity is a function of time, its bound to the laws of this universe. Eternity is not, eternity is beyond the natural laws, and thus, the only answer for what God is.

The reason this is important is you cannot explain existence without invoking eternity. So when an atheist invokes natural laws to explain existence, the atheist already lost the argument.

Well, the argument to "explain" existence and God is already lost. What is known of God, the author of existence, is known by revelation, not by debate.

The Socratic axiom of "I only know that I know nothing" should be a real philosophers guiding principle. And as far as any "logical" constructs, one should understand Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, show that any finite rule system based on set theory will always have truths that require an expanded system.

You cannot reach the truth. You cannot catch it.

 

[Muwahid]

Well, the argument to "explain" existence and God is already lost. What is known of God, the author of existence, is known by revelation, not by debate.

The Socratic axiom of "I only know that I know nothing" should be a real philosophers guiding principle. And as far as any "logical" constructs, one should understand Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, show that any finite rule system based on set theory will always have truths that require an expanded system.

You cannot reach the truth. You cannot catch it.

Godel's incompleteness theorem essentially states that all systems are incomplete. This is similar to Thomas Aquinas' ideas of vicious infinite regress.

An atheist can bypass this by also invoking eternity--if their eternal constant is natural law itself, the system is complete.

Therefore the theistic and atheistic positions do not differ on a philosophical level. The key is in eternity, the key is in not having to explain it, then you don't need a complete system, do you? But that logic isn't only reserved for theists.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The Socratic axiom of "I only know that I know nothing" should be a real philosophers guiding principle.

I'm not sure it should be, since it's self-contradictory -- a variation of the Liar Paradox.

 

[wizardwatson]

Godel's incompleteness theorem essentially states that all systems are incomplete. This is similar to Thomas Aquinas' ideas of vicious infinite regress.

An atheist can bypass this by also invoking eternity--if their eternal constant is natural law itself, the system is complete.

Therefore the theistic and atheistic positions do not differ on a philosophical level. The key is in eternity, the key is in not having to explain it, then you don't need a complete system, do you? But that logic isn't only reserved for theists.

Anyway, seems unnecessarily abstract. But then, I don't know what God you believe in that you are even fighting this intellectual war against atheists for.

Everyone believes in something, even if just themselves. Or else they wouldn't get up in the morning.

 

[wizardwatson]

I'm not sure it should be, since it's self-contradictory -- a variation of the Liar Paradox.

"Take away paradox from the thinker and you have a professor." - Soren Kierkegaard

 

[otherone]

I am sure you were not the only one to not understand. I hope you understand now.

Yup. I understand completely. It doesn't make your premise correct, however.

 

[Muwahid]

Anyway, seems unnecessarily abstract. But then, I don't know what God you believe in that you are even fighting this intellectual war against atheists for.

Everyone believes in something, even if just themselves. Or else they wouldn't get up in the morning.

My object is logical consistency, not to wage an intellectual war with anyone.

I can concede there are logically consistent atheistic worldviews (i.e., nature is eternal) but I will always make the case inductively that the theistic position is more logical given the circumstances of our history.

Atheists believe they have a monopoly on rationality, in most cases this is the opposite of true, but as theists we must also be mindful of being logically consistent because our biggest enemy isn't false gods, its the belief in no god.

 

[otherone]

as theists we must also be mindful of being logically consistent because our biggest enemy isn't false gods, its the belief in no god.

I'm more inclined to believe that your greatest enemy is doubt.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Yup. I understand completely. It doesn't make your premise correct, however.

OK....

Definitely true. Your understanding something does not make it correct.

I do not have any idea, however, to what premise you refer. If that was intentional, feel free to leave it at that. If instead you want me to be aware of my error, let me know which premise is mistaken.

 

[otherone]

OK....

Definitely true. Your understanding something does not make it correct.

I do not have any idea, however, to what premise you refer. If that was intentional, feel free to leave it at that. If instead you want me to be aware of my error, let me know which premise is mistaken.

The error in your premise is a byproduct of the thought process itself. The entire idea of prediction is an exercise in imagination, chemical/electrical impulses detached from the actual world. If one truly understood all the forces involved to make what is, is, then one realizes that the probability of human life, or dog life, or anything else extant, is 100%. If it were to be any other way, than it would be so. Probability is pointless after the fact. The premise is creation-neutral. it neither points to a creator or existence as a product of natural forces.

 

[Mr Tansill]

I don't agree with this logic.

If we assume time to be infinite then it would be essentially a guarantee at some point conditions for life are met.

Probability is a weak argument for that reason.

The only universal truth is that something/some force must facilitate existence, and this "thing" cannot be subjugated to the laws of this universe itself. Just by using logic we can deduce an eternal entity; what it is, we can only rationalize.

Probability, teleological arguments, all weak...

Yep. And here we are.

Even assuming that this probability could really be calculated (which I seriously doubt), it proves nothing. If each of four bridge foursomes played ten hands, the odds against their receiving the exact cards they were dealt is 10^1,152 to 1. Yet no one would think that there was some kind of supernatural explanation for it.

That is the point that so many people just don't seem to capture. Nothing subtle about it. Our "surprise" at certain outcomes, means nothing, absolutely nothing,

We can't assume time to be infinite. Time is inseparable from space, matter, and energy, all of which must go back to an original timeless uncaused first cause.

Also, the conditions for life include physical constants, all of which are fine-tuned to permit human life. Are you saying that with infinite time, all of the physical constants would fluctuate over that time, so that at some point they would be what they are?

This is a form of begging the question. Rather, it is the case that life as we know it is very well suited to the physical constants in the universe. It is not, as you imply, the other way around, which gives you a " -> God made it" consequent.

 

[Mr Tansill]

Obviously! I never once said improbable occurrences are equal to impossible occurrences.

I have said, perhaps three or four times, maybe more, that improbable =/= impossible and proceeded to elucidate what I am saying, but what I am saying is manifestly too subtle or complex for you to grasp in your current frame of mind. And so I gave up. At least on the direct approach. I was trying a different approach. As I said:

Were the words "forget probability" not clear enough?

Yes, you did (more like 5-10 times), and I will continue to harp on that as long as you state the opposite. Here is a link to the post where I placed no less than five of your claims that improbability rules out a theory (i.e. improbable = impossible). Post.

And yes, the statement "forget probability" is very clear - what it makes clear, is that you don't want to have previously stated those things at this point in our discussion.

I rather think they were. And you are just stonewalling, because you think that gives you the rhetorical advantage. But you are wrong. You think you have me in a corner that I can never escape from, your logic is airtight, and you don't want me to weasel out. You don't want me to, as I put it, "start at the top instead of the bottom" or indeed talk about absolutely anything else until we resolve "Probability". But I am not trying to rhetorically crush you. You may (or may not!) have a need to "win this argument" and "be right," but I do not. Indeed as anyone can see I have repeatedly put myself and my own position in an unfavorable light, self-deprecated, etc. This is not a battle that you are in.

No, I am not stonewalling you. I am refusing to side-step a relevant point in your argument, that you would just like to forget about at this point, but that is not stonewalling. Leaving all that aside, however, I am not sure what, exactly, the argument you are making is...?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

The error in your premise is a byproduct of the thought process itself. The entire idea of prediction is an exercise in imagination, chemical/electrical impulses detached from the actual world. If one truly understood all the forces involved to make what is, is, then one realizes that the probability of human life, or dog life, or anything else extant, is 100%. If it were to be any other way, than it would be so. Probability is pointless after the fact. The premise is creation-neutral. it neither points to a creator or existence as a product of natural forces.

Remarkably, I still have no idea what premise you are talking about! It seems that:

1. I have posited a premise.
2. It is erroneous.

I just have no idea what that premise is.

Could you let me know, like, in a sentence? Either that I wrote or you have distilled from my essence of thought?

 

[Occam's Banana]

If one truly understood all the forces involved to make what is, is, then one realizes that the probability of human life, or dog life, or anything else extant, is 100%. If it were to be any other way, than it would be so.

I agree. The only "real" probabilities are either 0 or 1.

Probability is pointless after the fact. The premise is creation-neutral. it neither points to a creator or existence as a product of natural forces.

I don't think expressions of "probability" are pointless (either before or after the fact).

They have their uses. Many people do, however, have a tendency to give them too much dispositive weight,

Properly understood, expressions of "probability" are merely expressions of our ignorance-limited confidence that some particular thing is, was or will be the case.

IOW: Probabilities have to do with what is (or is not) "in our heads" (observations, (un)awareness, knowledge, ignorance, etc.), not with what is or is not "out there."