Sorry, but I fail to see the logical connection between the two statements.
Can you redirect?
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Sorry, but I fail to see the logical connection between the two statements.
Can you redirect?
On what other levels is that a problem?
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
If you had said "yes," absolute true does exist (without the slick qualifiers of 'in mathematics' or 'in nature' etc.) absolutely, then you would have been correct in your assessment and bound to answer the follow-up question of:
Where does absolute truth obtain its source and origin?"
Following the well established universal constant that for every effect, there must be an associated causality within the known universe, one has to also conclude that there can be no cause without a preceding effectual outcome. This if a thing within our known universe exists, there must a point of instantiation for said thing. Forward, therefore, if absolute truth exists, then it must also have a point of instantiation, source and/or origin.
The logic is unbreakable, but I don't mind a healthy (on the merits) debate with anyone who thinks they can.
Wow!
Veyron 16, this thread is advanced for me but you use easy math for your proof of god. So is N=god what you are saying?
If that is what you are saying than here is my question.
You say 0+0=0 , and that is true.
To have a cause for the universe, nothing + nothing = nothing, so nothing + __?__ have to be greater than 0 to be proof of cause (something). So people ask what cause the universe, and answer the big bang. Then people ask what cause the big bang, and answer colliding membranes, and what cause colliding membranes.... and keep asking what cause everything before that. So you want the answer to N. You say N have to be creator because
We know 0+0=0
You say 0+N>0 So you are limit god (N) to be >0
But then you say god have no limits. Hmm?
So if god has no limit, then god is not 0+N>0
God with no limit would be: 0+N>0 IF N>0<0>0 something like that I think.
If that is what you are saying than here is my question.
You say 0+0=0 , and that is true.
To have a cause for the universe, nothing + nothing = nothing, so nothing + __?__ have to be greater than 0 to be proof of cause (something). So people ask what cause the universe, and answer the big bang. Then people ask what cause the big bang, and answer colliding membranes, and what cause colliding membranes.... and keep asking what cause everything before that. So you want the answer to N. You say N have to be creator because
We know 0+0=0
You say 0+N>0 So you are limit god (N) to be >0
But then you say god have no limits. Hmm?
So if god has no limit, then god is not 0+N>0
God with no limit would be: 0+N>0 IF N>0<0>0 something like that I think.
Goodness me Veyron. How can you make so much inconsistency and illogical mistake without checking yourself?
Look, here is the way it appears to shape (or rather doesn't shape) up.
You asked the question "Does Absolute Truth Exist?"
It is fair to say absolute truth exists and is demonstrated in math nature and existence.
You seem to agree to absolute truth, which you asked of 'does it exist' , is in math and nature, and agree outright to the absolute truth of Existence.
You seem to have no logical conflict with Existence but for no logical reason yet made, you do with Math and Nature?
Would you like to have another go at trying to explain why that is so? And please if you do, could you keep it concise.
Let me just say, if your intention was that to in some way prove by asking "Does absolute truth exist." that God was to be the only "absolute truth", even though there is no verifying evidence whatsoever of God, quite unlike there is of the absolute truth of Math, Nature and Existence, itâs not really going to happen - is it!
As for your "no wiggle room logical proof" of [0+0]+N = God thing or whatever it is, you cannot arbitrarily attach God to the symbol N and say math proves the existence of God. You may well be able to do that at the laughingly named "Discovery Institute" but not in any formal math exercise.
Your 'unbreakable logic' as you call it breaks itself into bits. In reality nothing to do with logic, but comes across as a question begging self defeating set of assumptions supported on no more than an egocentric self conviction that you are right.
There is no math, there is no science, there is no logical argument in or for Intelligent Design and Creationism. There never has been.
Trying to use math or logic to prove what is essentially the emotional desire for a Creator/Intelligent Design/Creationism isn't going to work.
No offense intended.
"could you keep it concise."
I'd be glad to keep it concise...
Let me guess, your parents were bloody authoritarian types...
LOL!
Hey Mr. Black Pot:
"but comes across as a question begging self defeating set of assumptions supported on no more than an egocentric self conviction that you are right.
I wonder if you have any idea how much egocentric self conviction that you are right comes flooding through your posts...
Classic, just classic.
Damn good show man, damn good show...
Always good for a laugh dude, always...
I'd be glad to keep it concise...
Let me guess, your parents were bloody authoritarian types...
LOL!
Hey Mr. Black Pot:
"but comes across as a question begging self defeating set of assumptions supported on no more than an egocentric self conviction that you are right.
I wonder if you have any idea how much egocentric self conviction that you are right comes flooding through your posts...
Classic, just classic.
Damn good show man, damn good show...
Always good for a laugh dude, always...
Well, typo of a single character included (I think I am allowed to make those - you've certainly made enough), Steady State is a non-starter. Since that was the underlying premise for countering an argument previously made, then it becomes a non-starter, making your point here equally in error.
It was Einstein's theory of general relativity that needed Hubble's discovery of background radiation to formally proof it. To the point, both make sure that Steady State theory never saw the light of day again in the mind of serious cosmologists from that point forward.
Does anyone here suggest that the Universe is infinite? I hope not as that would cancel out just about every modern theory for the source and origin of the Universe currently in existence today.
You might want to extrapolate on exactly what you'd like a response to. I don't get the basis for the question being asked, here.