RE: "Undefeated" Apologetic Argument
January 24, 2014 at 10:19 am
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2014 at 10:45 am by Alex K.)
The graphic design of this abomination is already proof enough that there is no God! Bleargh!
But in seriousness -
"Creating" is a word in the English language which only has meaning as a name for a temporal process taking place in space. Anyone who talks about "creating time" or "creating the universe" without giving you a really careful mathematical description of what she means, is simply stringing words together. The resulting phrases only superficially sound as if they had meaning, because we kind of insert meanings from everyday experience. Once you analyse these statements with *any* scrutiny, you immediately find that they are nonsensical. "Creating" is meaningless if there is no timeline of some sort which preexists, with respect to which this change is effected. If a timeline preexsists, a universe of sorts already exists, thus making this creation process not the original creation of the universe, but simply a physical process within an existing universe, i.e., nothing special that says anything about your god.
Furthermore, assuming for the sake of entertainment that this creation ex nihilo were an actual problem for atheism, it follows that it would be just as big a problem for theism, since it is no more justified to assume an existing god than it is to assume an existing universe.
Introducing the "uncreated creator" as the sole alternative to eternal spacetime or spontaneous creation from nothingness is a cheap rhetorical sleight of hand. One could as well substitute "uncreated cyclical universe" e.g.:
P1 - The ''SCPNCEU'' and "STE" are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence. (English???)
P2 - If you deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated cyclical Universe'' option, then your only options are ''SCPNCEU'' or "STE".
P3 - ''Theists'' deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Universe'' option as the cause of the universe.
T - ''Theists'' are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence.
You see what I have done here? P2 simply introduces an arbitrary alternative which the opponent of your choice denies, and like in a parlor trick, you have already established nonsensical alternatives which then seem to be the only alternatives for your opponent to believe in, thus seemingly showing that he is irrational.
Yawn.
p.s.
"In over 500 online debates it remains undefeated!!"
LOL
But in seriousness -
"Creating" is a word in the English language which only has meaning as a name for a temporal process taking place in space. Anyone who talks about "creating time" or "creating the universe" without giving you a really careful mathematical description of what she means, is simply stringing words together. The resulting phrases only superficially sound as if they had meaning, because we kind of insert meanings from everyday experience. Once you analyse these statements with *any* scrutiny, you immediately find that they are nonsensical. "Creating" is meaningless if there is no timeline of some sort which preexists, with respect to which this change is effected. If a timeline preexsists, a universe of sorts already exists, thus making this creation process not the original creation of the universe, but simply a physical process within an existing universe, i.e., nothing special that says anything about your god.
Furthermore, assuming for the sake of entertainment that this creation ex nihilo were an actual problem for atheism, it follows that it would be just as big a problem for theism, since it is no more justified to assume an existing god than it is to assume an existing universe.
Introducing the "uncreated creator" as the sole alternative to eternal spacetime or spontaneous creation from nothingness is a cheap rhetorical sleight of hand. One could as well substitute "uncreated cyclical universe" e.g.:
P1 - The ''SCPNCEU'' and "STE" are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence. (English???)
P2 - If you deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated cyclical Universe'' option, then your only options are ''SCPNCEU'' or "STE".
P3 - ''Theists'' deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Universe'' option as the cause of the universe.
T - ''Theists'' are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence.
You see what I have done here? P2 simply introduces an arbitrary alternative which the opponent of your choice denies, and like in a parlor trick, you have already established nonsensical alternatives which then seem to be the only alternatives for your opponent to believe in, thus seemingly showing that he is irrational.
Yawn.
p.s.
"In over 500 online debates it remains undefeated!!"
LOL
