Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tortoise; Incindiary
What is 'false' about something having a beginning?

What is false about something that had a beginning, having a reason it began, whether that reason is man or God or chance, it had a 'reason' to begin?

Everything Incindiary said is true. If something had a beginning, there had to be a reason it began. When considering the reason for all beginning, to call it God is no more faith-inclusive than someone believing inthe bbig bang, for no one ever saw that or experienced that and only assume that, so the big bang is a faith based belief, too.

276 posted on 02/06/2002 5:45:47 AM PST by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies ]


To: RaceBannon;incindiary
What is 'false' about something having a beginning?

The construct isn't false, but the premises are arbitrarily selected and defined to yield a particular result. A number of assertions are made that are not necessarily valid or relevant to the argument; the only reason they are made is that they must be made to support a particular point of view. For example, "Nobody created the creator. God is eternal." is semantic gibberish. There is no reason this has to be so and no evidence one way or the other; the universe would still work perfectly if that assertion was false and, say for example, God the creator was merely "very long lived" rather than eternal or immortal. Statement #1 in that post was using a pedestrian definition of "cause" that assumes things that aren't necessarily true. Statement #2 assumes the universe has a beginning; this is neither necessarily true nor required in any case for the general assertion to be true. And so forth.

The conclusions drawn require so many unnecessary implicit assumptions in their reasoning that it doesn't make for a useful argument. Even if God DID create the universe and everything in it and we could prove it, it would still be very possible to refute the argument given by disproving one of the myriad of artificial assumptions utilized in it. If you had listed these implicit assumptions as explicit premises, the argument would have been sliced-n-diced by attacking the premises for similar reasons. Chaining together unverifiable hypotheses to construct the premises for a particular hypothesis is not considered a reasonable argument, as ANYTHING can be proven with the exact same logic, true or not.

298 posted on 02/06/2002 9:02:03 AM PST by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson