The logical fallacy of creation

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by NorEaster
Actually science isn't suggesting this. A handful of theoretical physicists with book deals are suggesting this, and the rest of science is shaking its head at how inane it is as a viable premise.

Sounds like a layman synopsis to me. The OP is on track as far as I'm concerned. To say at some "time" there was absolutely nothing, in any sense of the idea, and then suddenly **BAM!!!!** everything came out of nothing, is nonsensical. It does not follow in any stretch of the word "logical."

What ever happened to "something can't come from nothing"? Are you a actually religionist?

I'm not a religionist. I don't believe in magic or unnatural events. I do know that physical existence is not founded on a "god particle" or matter of any sort, and since I know this, I have a much better point of view on how it is that something could easily have come out out of nothing, and when it did, I also have a better understanding of what drove that something to develop into everything we know to exist, as well as a lot more that we obviously don't know to exist.

"Something can't come from nothing" is based on particle physics, and particle physics is losing its capacity to remain viable as a science. Then again, it took those same folks a long time to stop putting leeches on people whenever they got a cold, so who knows how long it'll take to move them off their perches.

Originally posted by Serafine

"The universe didn't come from "nothing" but it was "still" and not moving ( i.e. NOTHING to the physical ). When it "MOVED" the creation process happened."

This comes surprisingly close to what actually did happen. Ha! Good work. Only thing that you overlooked was the need for impetus in your suggestion. What occurs must be driven to occur - always.

Find your impetus, determine your only plausible change agents, and discover how to eliminate the need for a contextual environment to host this initiating change, and you'll be knocking on the door. You are very close to figuring it all out for yourself.

reply to post by NorEaster


You seem to have the knowledge of what happened to make it all happen. You allude to the simplicity. You allude to how natural it is.

I can tell you for a fact I know how it all started and even why. I do happen to think I know but I don't have the same level of confidence that you do. I happen to agree with probably 90% of the words you've laid out on this post and appreciate all your efforts and I must say for the first time in over 20 years pondering the subject you've laid out a few things I haven't heard.

So I will ask bluntly. What is it you see / know?

You aren't going to have definite evidence of God until you have an experience. And you probably aren't going to have an experience until you ask God with an open mind. And you probably will not do so because you're unable to suspend you disbelief for a non-philosophical God.

Originally posted by NorEaster
I do know that physical existence is not founded on a "god particle" or matter of any sort

How were you able to determine that, if you don't mind my asking?

and since I know this, I have a much better point of view on how it is that something could easily have come out out of nothing, and when it did, I also have a better understanding of what drove that something to develop into everything we know to exist, as well as a lot more that we obviously don't know to exist.

That's good for you if you think you know that, but is there any way you can render some explanation for those who don't already have your view point?

Originally posted by 547000
You aren't going to have definite evidence of God until you have an experience. And you probably aren't going to have an experience until you ask God with an open mind. And you probably will not do so because you're unable to suspend you disbelief for a non-philosophical God.

I have had an experience every bit as real and every bit as profound as any I have heard. My starting point was somewhere between complete Nihilism and Existentialism. I started from nowhere believing in nothing. I've decided science is a tool, not the answer. God is also a tool, and not the answer, philosophical inquiry is also just a tool.

I play at philosophy, religion, and science. To me they are interesting exorcises for the mind.

In our hearts, souls, subconscious, livers, wherever you feel your spiritual knowledge hides, there we all already understand. The confusion comes through in the masks, the interpretation, the decorations we hang on the tree.

Until you can look into yourself free from the preconceived notion of a God you will never have the full experience...

Originally posted by Jinglelord

Originally posted by 547000
You aren't going to have definite evidence of God until you have an experience. And you probably aren't going to have an experience until you ask God with an open mind. And you probably will not do so because you're unable to suspend you disbelief for a non-philosophical God.

I have had an experience every bit as real and every bit as profound as any I have heard. My starting point was somewhere between complete Nihilism and Existentialism. I started from nowhere believing in nothing. I've decided science is a tool, not the answer. God is also a tool, and not the answer, philosophical inquiry is also just a tool.

I play at philosophy, religion, and science. To me they are interesting exorcises for the mind.

In our hearts, souls, subconscious, livers, wherever you feel your spiritual knowledge hides, there we all already understand. The confusion comes through in the masks, the interpretation, the decorations we hang on the tree.

Until you can look into yourself free from the preconceived notion of a God you will never have the full experience...

I started out as a nihilist with no preconceived notions for God and was slowly led to the idea that the traditional theological God is correct. My experiences were not vague but quite specific.

ha ha ha this is good.

The big error in your opening headline is that creation isn't logical. Thats why people go nuts trying to disprove it. If creation is a God thing, no ordinary human could ever figure it out.

Big loser points here.

Originally posted by NorEaster

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.

Sort of a similar argument to God never truly being able to create a miracle, because if God created a Universe that was perfect in every way, then he would be working against this perfection and denying his own laws in order to create a miracle. A miracle would then be by definition imperfect, and the very act of God creating a Miracle would negate his own perfection....of course one could argue the definitions and meanings of some of these words, but I think its still pretty hard to invalidate the conclusion that God would only be able to do those things that were already physically allowed in the universe that he created without negating himself. One could argue that since many processes in the Universe are random, then God could nudge such random events in order to create a Miracle, but this too would be negating His own perfection since nudging probability would still entail a negation of a systems randomness and would be by definition no longer be perfect.

That aside, I'm not sure that if "God were absolute, as soon as He created anything, He would immediately lose His absolute nature" If God is the absolute then could not the absolute simply be redefined with each new creation? Imagine an Ocean, with the word Ocean being understood as both the water, and everything within the water. Couldn't the Ocean evolve [create] new life [or just new complexity] and yet would that new life not simply be still be the Ocean? Wouldn't the term "Ocean" simply be redefined with each added [or lost] complexity?

Everyone has their own little personal god, even Atheists. The difference between the atheist and the theist:

Theist: "I must please my external, unperceptible God by doing what he tells me"
Atheist: "I must please my inner God, myself, by doing what he/I have considered appropriate by nature and nurture"

Originally posted by daggyz
ha ha ha this is good.

The big error in your opening headline is that creation isn't logical. Thats why people go nuts trying to disprove it. If creation is a God thing, no ordinary human could ever figure it out.

Big loser points here.

I would say that I have undoubtedly achieved a giant Fail on this post. However there has been a lot of interesting debate so I'm pleased with the end result.

If creation is a God thing there is no discussion, there can be no logical argument with those of faith. Faith by its nature is taken outside of logic and any discussion is simply about the nature of the faith. A convenient set up. I'm not going to argue anyone's faith. I will call anyone an ignorant (Insert expletive here) for telling me I'm wrong because of their faith.

I must admit I'm working to understand and control my ego. Since I haven't quite mastered that you pissed me off. To me it is self evident Christianity and the concept of a creator God is complete Bull. I don't say this blindly.

Obviously to many others it isn't quite as obvious. My opening post is correct, there is nothing wrong with it other than being short and not getting into too much detail. Most here don't agree with me. If correctness was determined by popularity the entire natural world would work like a political party and the natural world would look much different.

I respect any argument that challenges any base assumptions I obviously took, and challenging those assumptions could change my mind. I am using fairly standard assumptions.

Anyway [Snip] you buddy!

reply to post by NorEaster

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.

Your challenge to the idea of God as absolute is founded on the presumption that God is undifferentiated. However, if God is regarded as being centripetal in nature, then a concentrated focus of love or spirit would be formed within God, with a graduation of lessening intensity of spirit away from the centre. In the act of creation, God maintains his absolute centripetal centre, while the material universe is brought forth from the attenuated spirituality of that which is furthest from the centre but still within God. The "contextual juxtaposition" of God with material reality exists by virtue of the essence of spirituality which permeates all of God, hence all that arises within God, namely the creation.

You know I couldn't help but reply to all of this for one final time for hope of understanding, but after I'm done, no need to even read replies, they will be negative, it's okay. I have read these discussions time and time again throughout my late 20 years. I am a scholar in science, more than you know, although you probably don't believe me due to the lies that are soo easily spread on the internet.

The problem I have with most of you '' athiest '' is you talk a good game sometimes but you sure don't walk the right way. Your like bums holding signs on an abandoned road just a little afar from where you could make a little extra shekels.

How do you expect people like me, a man of science and faith to EVER have a deep discussion with some of the likes of your personas when right when you hear the words, '' I believe in a intelligent design '' you put your trigger on defcon 9 and completely begin a mission against those whom believe?

You are actually worse than the religious false fanatics. You dismiss something you do not believe and not keep a open mind in the name of science which is supposed to keep the mind open to new discoveries.

How can you provide a base for vaild truce in that area? You cannot. This forum title will fade and reappear as time goes by as the rest.

I do not even go to church on Sundays. I have a personal belief, from research and experiences and traveling throughout the world on science's dollar, not religion, because I don't trust religious leaders in this day, I only trust my truth.

But that is not good enough is it?

You want more, you want a definite answer to something that is more complex than curing cancer or war.

Why not take the Bible for what it's worth? Doing for other's more than you do for your own selfish soul.
Is that not righteous? Is that not enough? Do you need more?

Your life is no more important than peasants that suffered with good hearts long before your family tree begun.

Believe, don't believe, who cares....But live right keep an open mind, live for life, love, and above all family.

That is what the Bible teaches, rather you believe or not, it teaches the triumph of man. But that will never be good enough, no matter how many discussions, wars, abortions, murders, and waste of #ing life.

I know what you are trying to get into OP. But there are too many threads on here already to search that I have read that brought this up. It will never end.

And due to the mass atheists on here, they strive on this. Take this advice please.

Choose with your heart, cause science or not your heart is who you are, then go from there. That is the best advice you will ever get unless you want astronomy tips and witful phrases that sound sweet to the mind.

We are here, we will be gone, live right, just live right. Thats all I can say. God Bless!

reply to post by Jinglelord

If creation is a God thing there is no discussion, there can be no logical argument with those of faith. Faith by its nature is taken outside of logic and any discussion is simply about the nature of the faith.

I respectfully disagree. In some of the eastern mystic traditions, emphasis is placed on satisfying the intellect before considering placing one's faith in any teachings. Anything which may be seen as illogical or beyond reason is regarded as a potential stumbling block to the practice of a spiritual path.

If your focus is on Christianity, then I would agree that much of the belief is faith-based, though I would not be so quick as to discard rational thought from the consideration of their view of creation.

reply to post by Jinglelord

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

You've created the stage for the debate in the OP, winning the debate in the OP using the weakest creationist arguments. I'm not gonna deny you win, I'm gonna deny you the prize because you set the stage. If you want a debate, don't pick and choose weak creationist arguments, that is like me choosing and picking the weakest Atheist arguments to win. I wouldn't want the prize

Originally posted by mysticnoon
I respectfully disagree. In some of the eastern mystic traditions, emphasis is placed on satisfying the intellect before considering placing one's faith in any teachings. Anything which may be seen as illogical or beyond reason is regarded as a potential stumbling block to the practice of a spiritual path.

If your focus is on Christianity, then I would agree that much of the belief is faith-based, though I would not be so quick as to discard rational thought from the consideration of their view of creation.

You said you disagreed but you didn't! (At least not in the context of which I meant that comment)

The Eastern mystic traditions view the concept of a god / God / gods, differently than Christianity does. Christianity in my experience will make a faith based claim and then proceed to back fill any logic or fact they can find.

Should an argument be presented that begins in logic and ends in a Christian view of creation I would accept it and be glad to read it. I have never seen such an argument and those that purport to have this argument either skip steps or make base assumptions I can't quite get to.

It is true when I hear "God" I immediately make the assumption we are speaking of the Judeo-Christian God.which isn't normally a stretch.

reply to post by P3ACE0WAR


That part of the debate is not important. I didn't want to debate Creationism. I still don't and thought I made that clear in the OP.

I wanted to discuss the concept of creation of all things. I don't care if it is the Darwinist who says it started at the big bang or the creationist who says it came from their God. Thread got out of control and everyone got caught up looking at the windshield instead of the sky...

Didn't want a prize, wanted a good discussion, and from a few did get it...

reply to post by Jinglelord


Your thread is about creation, but you want to focus on the creator, that's the problem here, that's why I say you setup the stage for yourself.

Just a thing that came to mind while reading this thread; where do "will" fit in in the creation-equation?

Should or should not - is there a choice?
By legal definition; yes, but covering up bad choices with claiming divine intervention is questionable...

Originally posted by nakiel
Just a thing that came to mind while reading this thread; where do "will" fit in in the creation-equation?

Should or should not - is there a choice?
By legal definition; yes, but covering up bad choices with claiming divine intervention is questionable...

You didn't read my reply did you?

The infinite cant create anything without the will to do so. There must be a reason and a will in the equation if something is to be created.

Its just that the other grasshoppers don't get it.