Advice Please

[pandora]

Yes, Asimov... please explain why you think that was a bad question? What logical flaws or fallacies do you see? I am curious.

[willybilly30]

the flaw is i said it! if anyone else would have said it assimov wouldnt have said a damn word!

him and shiva have been bugging me since the day i joined this forum and frankly iv about had my fill. if its not grammer its something else. i dont know what they have against me or why they hate me so much. i wish they would go away.

[jjacksonRIAB]

The only problem I can see with asking the question is that it's answering a question with a question, but then again the question leads into paradox. Asimov, how would you respond to questions like that?

 

I have half a mind sometimes just to tell them it's a fucking retarded set of questions that are obviously flawed - score one for the emotional home team, but lose one for the opposition, unless you aren't interested in convincing them; I've actually gotten to that point, because I've come to the realization that whatever side you're on, the most logical arguer is not necessarily the most celebrated one.

 

Then there are those of the "dual wield" nature who say, "that's fucking retarded", and then proceed to demonstrate why.

 

Some (probably most) people respond better to the emotional. I knew this guy who was logically laying out his rationale for why he wished his mother would die so he could get the house. The arguments he laid out were fairly convincing and impenetrable, because he had more time to prepare for it than I. My usual technique would be to dissect it and I met with failure to convince over and over.

 

Finally I told him he was an asshole - got his attention that way, then proceeded to explain why. Then he got the point. For a while. After the sting of the opener wore off he came back days later to argue his position again.

 

By that time I had lost it and just kept insulting him nonstop. He apologized later and said he had changed his mind - but had he? Maybe now he just chooses not to tell me what he's thinking. Honesty loses, though I admit I find the dual wielder's arguments more entertaining.

[Asimov]

I think it's a wonderful question! Who made God? Who made God's creator? Who made God's creator's creator? And so on and so forth into an infinite regress! In short, where's god's family tree? Did he evolve out of prexisting materials in the universe or did he just have an unlimiteed amount of parents? Maybe he was abandoned in this universe because his Mommy and Daddy knew, in advance, what a big asshole he'd be! lol... So then, he thought he was the only one....

 

It's a terrible question. It totally negates the point of having a God. Theists establish this being as a necessary entity transcending to pretty much everything. If "god" had a creator, he wouldn't be a necessary entity.

 

Infinite regress, while definitely a possibility, is ended when a God is inserted into the equation. Essentially, he is existence.

 

That is why it is a terrible question to ask. Unless a specific argument is brought up like:

 

Everything that exists has a cause.

The universe exists.

Therefore the universe has a cause.

 

This begs the question...but isn't even an established theistic argument.

 

I would have gone into more detail earlier, but I was at work.

 

Yes, Asimov... please explain why you think that was a bad question? What logical flaws or fallacies do you see? I am curious.

 

Pandora, it really has nothing to do with logic though. It's just a question asked out of ignorance that has no relevance to the God concept. It's a bad question to ask. It shows you are a n00b!

 

i wish you would find someone else to annoy.

i have seen this question asked many times by athiests so its a famous question go talk to them about it.

 

 

WOW ASSIMOV LOOK AN ATHIEST THOUGHT MY QUESTION WAS A GOOD ONE IMAGINE THAT.

YOU THINK EVERYTHING STUPID I BET YOU THINK YOURSELF IS STUPID I PICTURE YOU LIKE GROUCHY SMURF I HATE EVERYTHING. fuck you

 

You have got to be the whiniest little bitch I have ever met. Nobody can criticize what willy sez cuz he's too sensitive of a little man.

 

Hey wow, me and reverend disagree! Did you see the Reverend flipping out and sending me pm's like a three-year old little shithead?

 

 

 

here you go willy. Use this and the adults here can have an actual discussion.

 

Oh, and learn how to fucking spell properly, use grammar properly, and use the fucking code properly.

 

The only problem I can see with asking the question is that it's answering a question with a question, but then again the question leads into paradox. Asimov, how would you respond to questions like that?

 

I have half a mind sometimes just to tell them it's a fucking retarded set of questions that are obviously flawed - score one for the emotional home team, but lose one for the opposition, unless you aren't interested in convincing them; I've actually gotten to that point, because I've come to the realization that whatever side you're on, the most logical arguer is not necessarily the most celebrated one.

 

It is a fucking retarded set of questions, jackson. I couldn't agree with you more on that one. However, the only logical fallacy being commited by those questions are an argument from ignorance. Asking that question entirely negates the point of establishing a firm necessary being or cause to the universe as the theists see it.

 

The question doesn't necessarily lead into a paradox, because we know as an established philosophical point that God would necessarily be all-powerful, all-knowing and eternal (I think I missed a couple but whatever). This establishes the God-concept as an uncaused entity with no beginning.

[jjacksonRIAB]

The question doesn't necessarily lead into a paradox, because we know as an established philosophical point that God would necessarily be all-powerful, all-knowing and eternal (I think I missed a couple but whatever). This establishes the God-concept as an uncaused entity with no beginning.[/b]

 

That's precisely what I mean when I say it leads into paradox. Something with no beginning or end is paradoxical. A simple question: where is the middle of infinity? Any attempt to concretely define such a form, either qualitatively or quantitatively, is rife with contradictions -paradoxical.

 

An omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, whatever God itself harbors a great many paradoxes, not only internally, but when paired off.

 

Item A can contain paradox, but can it be paradox?

 

Shit, now I'm thinking about a container -a thing being contained by what it contains, and also being contained by what it does not contain.

 

Philosphy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Asimov]

The question doesn't necessarily lead into a paradox, because we know as an established philosophical point that God would necessarily be all-powerful, all-knowing and eternal (I think I missed a couple but whatever). This establishes the God-concept as an uncaused entity with no beginning.

 

That's precisely what I mean when I say it leads into paradox. Something with no beginning or end is paradoxical. A simple question: where is the middle of infinity? Any attempt to concretely define such a form, either qualitatively or quantitatively, is rife with contradictions -paradoxical.

 

An omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, whatever God itself harbors a great many paradoxes, not only internally, but when paired off.

 

Item A can contain paradox, but can it be paradox?

 

Shit, now I'm thinking about a container -a thing being contained by what it contains, and also being contained by what it does not contain.

 

Philosphy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ah, ok. Well that's a different philosophical discussion, though. I wasn't getting into the logics of God himself, just pointing out the theistic standpoint is that God is by definition uncreated.

[AtheistMommy]

So than, are we to assume that there was nothing before god? Or that maybe he made himself?

[Asimov]

So than, are we to assume that there was nothing before god? Or that maybe he made himself?

 

It's a meaningless assertion. It would be like asking "what existed before existence?" God is established as the necessary being.

 

There was no before God, he is uncreated and uncaused...eternal.

 

I'm not saying that it's established that this makes sense, I'm saying that it is irrelevant to ask "what made God" when dealing with theists.

 

Just like we don't need a cause to our universe, because it hasn't been established that there should be, there is no cause for God.

[AtheistMommy]

But isn't that the reason we do ask that question?

 

They (people like this guy who's emailing me) assume that there was nothing before us. And like he said, "you can't get something from nothing." But if we replace whatever it is that he thinks we believe happened with his god we have the same problem. If god created the world and everything in and around it, than what or who created god? After all, you can't get something from nothing, right?

 

Isn't this question a good way to show him the error of his question?

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Ah, ok. Well that's a different philosophical discussion, though. I wasn't getting into the logics of God himself, just pointing out the theistic standpoint is that God is by definition uncreated.

 

I think everyone knows that, according to Judeo/Christian mythology, Yahweh is supposed to be uncreated, eternal. That's not a good reason for not asking the question, though. We ask it because it's a contradiction to say everything has a creator, show complexity and then turn around and say that their very complex god doesn't have one. It's illogical and it should be constantly pointed out, not avoided.

[Asimov]

In a specific context of argument, it is a valid thing to say.

 

I don't see theists making that argument though.

 

The Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't say that, nor does William Lane Craig's Cosmological Argument say that.

[Ex-COG]

But isn't that the reason we do ask that question?

 

They (people like this guy who's emailing me) assume that there was nothing before us. And like he said, "you can't get something from nothing." But if we replace whatever it is that he thinks we believe happened with his god we have the same problem. If god created the world and everything in and around it, than what or who created god? After all, you can't get something from nothing, right?

 

Isn't this question a good way to show him the error of his question?

Why do we have to assume there was nothing before us, the universe, or whatever? Wouldn't there just have been the universe in a different form than we know it as now, from which all things evolved?

[Reverend AtheiStar]

But isn't that the reason we do ask that question?

 

They (people like this guy who's emailing me) assume that there was nothing before us. And like he said, "you can't get something from nothing." But if we replace whatever it is that he thinks we believe happened with his god we have the same problem. If god created the world and everything in and around it, than what or who created god? After all, you can't get something from nothing, right?

 

Isn't this question a good way to show him the error of his question?

Why do we have to assume there was nothing before us, the universe, or whatever? Wouldn't there just have been the universe in a different form than we know it as now, from which all things evolved?

 

That is precisely what I believe. I believe in a cyclical universe that is a constant process of creation and destruction. It makes the most sense to me. How this occurred looks to be a mystery but there are several good theories. One says that there have been infinite Big Bangs and Big Crunches. Another involves a fifth dimension and infinite parallel sheets, known as M theory. Then are some really strange hypotheses such as the Cyclic Multiverse! Wow, it makes me feel kind of high to ponder this one! lol...

[AtheistMommy]

But isn't that the reason we do ask that question?

 

They (people like this guy who's emailing me) assume that there was nothing before us. And like he said, "you can't get something from nothing." But if we replace whatever it is that he thinks we believe happened with his god we have the same problem. If god created the world and everything in and around it, than what or who created god? After all, you can't get something from nothing, right?

 

Isn't this question a good way to show him the error of his question?

Why do we have to assume there was nothing before us, the universe, or whatever? Wouldn't there just have been the universe in a different form than we know it as now, from which all things evolved?

 

 

If you're asking me what I believe, yes I believe there has been something there all along. Problem is we don't have all the answers. It's this guy who's been emailing me who believes that I believe that we came from nothing because I'm an Atheist.

 

Here's his reply to my last email:

 

If something can be a starting point then God can be a starting point.

[Dhampir]

That's a statement which would justify asking why the universe can't be a starting point. Why does god need to be there at all? He'll probably answer with 'well the universe can't have just started itself.' To which you can ask 'What started god?' At that point, I like to lead people into the circuity of their own arguments by then asking the first question, why does god need to be there at all, in reply to his repeating that god is the starting point, or that god is uncaused. I like to do that till they realize they can't answer me properly and try do duck out.

[AtheistMommy]

That's a statement which would justify asking why the universe can't be a starting point. Why does god need to be there at all? He'll probably answer with 'well the universe can't have just started itself.' To which you can ask 'What started god?' At that point, I like to lead people into the circuity of their own arguments by then asking the first question, why does god need to be there at all, in reply to his repeating that god is the starting point, or that god is uncaused. I like to do that till they realize they can't answer me properly and try do duck out.

 

 

Ok, I asked him. I doubt he'll duck out, he just reverts to ignorant questions he's already asked. I've really done all I can to answer him. But he's like talking to a wall. He tends to just ignore my points. Almost like he's having a debate or conversation with himself.

[Dhampir]

I've dealt with people who like to retreat into themselves. They will eventually say something asinine like "well, you need to be saved to understand how it all works" but, you can coax them into actually trying to argue against you. I like to play a little stupid, and concede as many points as I honestly can before battering their arguments. It's like drawing a chicken into a slaughter house, and cutting it's beak off before it can escape.