It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The logical fallacy of creation

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I see references to the subject of creation everywhere.

Not necessarily human creation, Creationism vs Darwinism sort of thing because a little thought requires you take this even further back.

Lets follow an "out there" line of reasoning (the logic will work for others as well).

Where did humans come from? Aliens seeded the planet to create us.

Where did the Aliens come from? They either evolved on their home planet or were seeded by someone who did.

Then where did the life originally come from? Natural phenomena and chemical process

Where did the Chemical process from? Ahh that is God!

Then where did God come from? Uhh uhhh He has always been!

All arguments become weak at the end and they all eventually logically HAVE to lead to it has always been. No matter if you are talking about God, or simply nature.

Because of this I think the idea of an original creation of any kind is a myth and a tool used by our human minds in an attempt to understand because the concept of infinity is simply too mind bending.

Note: Please don't use my example as a discussion point I am not discussing the Alien human theory but using it as an example of all creation ideas...




posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 

nothing in your post shows fallacy in creation.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
I see references to the subject of creation everywhere.

Not necessarily human creation, Creationism vs Darwinism sort of thing because a little thought requires you take this even further back.

Lets follow an "out there" line of reasoning (the logic will work for others as well).

Where did humans come from? Aliens seeded the planet to create us.

Where did the Aliens come from? They either evolved on their home planet or were seeded by someone who did.

Then where did the life originally come from? Natural phenomena and chemical process

Where did the Chemical process from? Ahh that is God!

Then where did God come from? Uhh uhhh He has always been!

All arguments become weak at the end and they all eventually logically HAVE to lead to it has always been. No matter if you are talking about God, or simply nature.

Because of this I think the idea of an original creation of any kind is a myth and a tool used by our human minds in an attempt to understand because the concept of infinity is simply too mind bending.

Note: Please don't use my example as a discussion point I am not discussing the Alien human theory but using it as an example of all creation ideas...


you are using your limited human reasoning to decide about creationism...whay logic/ Nothing is logical.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I see nature and the universe as the ultimate proof of God. If creation is a myth used to understand infinity how would you explain the big bang?
Everything even in it's smallest aspect, from the atom to the star is perfect, everything is in sync, an eternal law holds everything together.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Once the mainstream embraces the truth that corporeal reality is event-centric and not particle-centric, the answer to how everything came into existence will be much less of a faith-based proposition. Until then, it'll always be a logical conundrum.

A good thing to always keep in mind is that a dilemma can be the result of an inaccurate premise, or even an inaccurate (but thoroughly established) tenet within that premise. Applied to this paradox: * If after 6,000 years of the greatest minds of all time hitting wall after wall in their efforts to solve the logical problem of existential emergence versus infinite presence, and the latest crop of geniuses have finally resorted to declaring that physical existence is simply not governed by logic at all (in an obvious last ditch attempt to break through what will always separate them from the answer they so desperately seek) then maybe the best approach to take is to look at one of the foundational tenets being used within the equation to see if that's where the problem exists*

It's about the event, and its relationship with information. The particle is just what we perceive of that relationship. Focus there and it'll begin to all make sense with the logical structure that governs everything else that we already know about.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by PoopDawg
reply to post by Jinglelord
 

nothing in your post shows fallacy in creation.


Did you read the post or simply respond assuming a fallacy can't be shown with the concept of creation?

Creation can't exist if nothing was ever created because it has always been.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I see nature and the universe as the ultimate proof of God. If creation is a myth used to understand infinity how would you explain the big bang?
Everything even in it's smallest aspect, from the atom to the star is perfect, everything is in sync, an eternal law holds everything together.


That eternal law is the logical impact of ramification. That, and the nature of information. This sets up precedence and the essence of natural selection. By the way, nothing is perfect, but everything is expedient. Information, ramification and the concept of redundancy makes certain of that.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeissacred
 


The big bang would be part of a cycle I would suppose, assuming the theory is correct. It is not actual creation just reshaping. If you believe that energy can not be created or destroyed than the big bang is all the energy in the universe moving from a point to out across space and time.

The fact that everything works together is not a proof of God rather it is a proof that physical reality functions according to laws inherent to its nature.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Once the mainstream embraces the truth that corporeal reality is event-centric and not particle-centric, the answer to how everything came into existence will be much less of a faith-based proposition. Until then, it'll always be a logical conundrum.

A good thing to always keep in mind is that a dilemma can be the result of an inaccurate premise, or even an inaccurate (but thoroughly established) tenet within that premise. Applied to this paradox: * If after 6,000 years of the greatest minds of all time hitting wall after wall in their efforts to solve the logical problem of existential emergence versus infinite presence, and the latest crop of geniuses have finally resorted to declaring that physical existence is simply not governed by logic at all (in an obvious last ditch attempt to break through what will always separate them from the answer they so desperately seek) then maybe the best approach to take is to look at one of the foundational tenets being used within the equation to see if that's where the problem exists*

It's about the event, and its relationship with information. The particle is just what we perceive of that relationship. Focus there and it'll begin to all make sense with the logical structure that governs everything else that we already know about.


I was hoping someone would take the concept here. Thank you

I agree and I think the next most important to perceive is the nature of time. Outside of time creation can't exist because there is no logical progression of events. All information exists with no regard to linear order.

This is truly mind warping and I feel it is a mistake to simply attribute our answers to God because at that point understanding stops.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


The problem with that notion in my view is that nothing is truly expedient as energy cannot be destroyed it merely transforms. I know I will have a hard time justifying my views however I can see no other way of explaining what holds the universe together, why everything acts according to a rule set by something higher than mere matter.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
meaning the truth has to be infinite, because it must be uncreated, since everything created has a prior origination. The Buddha does not discuss the origins of things, because as you wisely put it, there is no absolute origin, since the absolute is eternal and uncaused.
edit on 16-4-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I can justify my believe in a God or creator if you would prefer by looking at how everything within our universe is bound by a law, physics, the behaviour of matter and the limits of existence i.e. the speed of light etc surely show that there is some design in our universe?



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I am new here and this is the first thread that caught my attention since I now post instead of reading.

God, Darwin go down the list.

Were we created by intelligent design or a accident and perfect situations for us to evolve from sea creepings?

So alot of people have made good points from both ends. People want to believe in big bang, Darwin, God, whomever they choose. You all think your side is correct in the end, thats why you post these topics with such confidence.

No one has the answer, they never have and they never will. All of this had to be created and what created that, is beyond our own minds, but our minds keep saying there has to be a logical reasoning. Thats whats gets us in trouble, we think we can find the answers to it all. We cannot. It bugs you, tough, get over it.

I believe in God, I don't agree with Darwin, but I respect his work and don't force my belief upon you. I know science, everthing has a theory behind it, they are not facts, we are too young to understand this, you only think you can. Accept you cannot and this will not bother you, but if you go down that road you will be saddened in the end.

I don't have the answer, but I have seen enough from both ends to live and die with the reasoning I have chosen.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeissacred
 


I think it depends on the meaning chosen for God. There are so many!

What you see as evidence of a creating force I see as evidence of matter within space and time. To my mind this matter is eternal with no beginning and no end and forms into a completely natural cohesive existence. Though this existence is not perfect for it is in a constant state of change. The change is the manifested by time. Perhaps it is doing what nature does: Seeking a complete balance?

I do believe matter reality within time is a expression of another reality outside of time. A "spiritual reality" if you will. Because anything existing outside of time is by nature infinite so too must the material world we see be infinite.

If this is what you mean by evidence of God than I would agree with you.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoulDominion
I am new here and this is the first thread that caught my attention since I now post instead of reading.

God, Darwin go down the list.

Were we created by intelligent design or a accident and perfect situations for us to evolve from sea creepings?

So alot of people have made good points from both ends. People want to believe in big bang, Darwin, God, whomever they choose. You all think your side is correct in the end, thats why you post these topics with such confidence.

No one has the answer, they never have and they never will. All of this had to be created and what created that, is beyond our own minds, but our minds keep saying there has to be a logical reasoning. Thats whats gets us in trouble, we think we can find the answers to it all. We cannot. It bugs you, tough, get over it.

I believe in God, I don't agree with Darwin, but I respect his work and don't force my belief upon you. I know science, everthing has a theory behind it, they are not facts, we are too young to understand this, you only think you can. Accept you cannot and this will not bother you, but if you go down that road you will be saddened in the end.

I don't have the answer, but I have seen enough from both ends to live and die with the reasoning I have chosen.



I can't speak for anyone else but I know that I know nothing and that is all I know for sure.

What we (or at least I) are doing here is engaging in an attempt to understand the nothing we know. This was posted in Philosophy and Metaphysics for a reason. It is an exercise to see how far I can warp my mind away from our seemingly limited existence and try to gain a little insight if not true knowledge.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord

Originally posted by SoulDominion
I am new here and this is the first thread that caught my attention since I now post instead of reading.

God, Darwin go down the list.

Were we created by intelligent design or a accident and perfect situations for us to evolve from sea creepings?

So alot of people have made good points from both ends. People want to believe in big bang, Darwin, God, whomever they choose. You all think your side is correct in the end, thats why you post these topics with such confidence.

No one has the answer, they never have and they never will. All of this had to be created and what created that, is beyond our own minds, but our minds keep saying there has to be a logical reasoning. Thats whats gets us in trouble, we think we can find the answers to it all. We cannot. It bugs you, tough, get over it.

I believe in God, I don't agree with Darwin, but I respect his work and don't force my belief upon you. I know science, everthing has a theory behind it, they are not facts, we are too young to understand this, you only think you can. Accept you cannot and this will not bother you, but if you go down that road you will be saddened in the end.

I don't have the answer, but I have seen enough from both ends to live and die with the reasoning I have chosen.



I can't speak for anyone else but I know that I know nothing and that is all I know for sure.

What we (or at least I) are doing here is engaging in an attempt to understand the nothing we know. This was posted in Philosophy and Metaphysics for a reason. It is an exercise to see how far I can warp my mind away from our seemingly limited existence and try to gain a little insight if not true knowledge.


True knowledge lies within. You have to chose what you truly want to believe in first. Warping your mind will make it warp more. Try to choose what you think occured, and use science and your heart then compare. Thats the easiest it will get.

Once you get there, your golden.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by NorEaster
 


The problem with that notion in my view is that nothing is truly expedient as energy cannot be destroyed it merely transforms. I know I will have a hard time justifying my views however I can see no other way of explaining what holds the universe together, why everything acts according to a rule set by something higher than mere matter.


You have to take a moment and appreciate the actual physical nature of the corporeal brain, and its capacity to perceive what it is as being anything other than solid matter. The particle of matter is actually an event trajectory that has become organized as a redundant event series. It occurs again and again, and with the human brain a matrixed event composed of an uncountable number of contributing event trajectories that are also organized as redundant event series, the only way it can perceive the particle is as a solid "now" object.

Energy is simply a different organization of event redundancies, and just because a scientist declared energy to be indestructable a century ago doesn't mean that the statement is necessarily true. We know that uranium radiation energy diminishes with a very specific half-life, and no one has ever offered a verifiable explanation for where that energy goes. or if it actually goes anywhere at all. Stating that it merely transforms is pretty easy to do, but it's a statement of faith and not verifiable fact.

I'm pretty sure that all the staples of traditional wisdom are getting set to be tested for their viability soon. Once one of them tumbles, the whole universe will become a new place for those with the courage to look at it all with fresh eyes. Not that anything will have actually changed, but when you discover a breakthrough truth, it may as well have completely reconfigured.
edit on 4/16/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Rather than a myth, I think creation stories are metaphors. Different word but I agree with you in concept: there really was no "beginning."


Even science is beginning to recognize this as they explore concepts of time being non-linear, multiple timelines and all of that. From a different perspective, time as we know it would not exist at all, but would be more akin to different localities where different things are happening.


Creation stories or "genesis" as a metaphor though is useful for every sentient being here involved in co-creation. We are constantly creating our lives. As far as that creation goes, there can be a logical order to it, if that's what befits you.
edit on 16-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
meaning the truth has to be infinite, because it must be uncreated, since everything created has a prior origination. The Buddha does not discuss the origins of things, because as you wisely put it, there is no absolute origin, since the absolute is eternal and uncaused.
edit on 16-4-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


However, the absolute - by its very definition - does not share contextual juxtaposition with the relative, and that being the case, what is physical and interactable (enjoying contextual juxtaposition) can not be absolute in essence. The idea that God is absolute crashes the logical viability of the concept of God, since the God in question also is said to have the capacity to create contextually justapositional reality - which, if He were absolute, He would not be able to do. In fact, if God were absolute, as soon as He created anything, He would immediately lose His absolute nature, as he would then exist in contextual juxtaposition with what it is that He just created. He would then be relative in nature, and forever, since information exists as an eternal, and the fact that He created something would always exist in contextual juxtaposition with Him. Test the logic in that, and you'll see that it's very sound.

Basically, the myth of an eternal active and intelligent anything is logically indefensible. But go ahead and believe what you wish. I don't find much enthusiasm for logic on this board. It's more fun to let the imagination go nuts.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I'm pretty sure that all the staples of traditional wisdom are getting set to be tested for their viability soon. Once one of them tumbles, the whole universe will become a new place for those with the courage to look at it all with fresh eyes. Not that anything will have actually changed, but when you discover a breakthrough truth, it may as well have completely reconfigured.
edit on 4/16/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


I think we will always have nothing but more questions than answers as time goes by. I think the breakthrough truth will be more theories and finally the endgame will be all the same as of where we are now. But like you and many others we all have our own unique view, and neither is fact, only opinions and theories.

I don't think the majority of this planet could handle the truth either way. We cannot even help ourselves now with all the tools we have that could actually better our own nations.

But keep the dream alive, it's better to want to know something than nothing at all.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join