Creationism Logical or Illogical?

[questor]

Ugh, thanks or the link. interesting reading if you like circuitous gobbledegook. i wouldn't put too much credence in Hume's logic as i read it. also, the continued reference to the Big Bang is not a strong point, because no one really knows how the universe began. i found this argument to be very weak. perhaps you could tell me the paragraph or sentence which seems most compelling to you? the use of the word GOD repeatedly also bothers me because that refers to a deity invented by man rather than the omnipotent

creator that i envision.

[ughaibu]

Questor: I haven't given it a thorough read yet but at first glance I didn't find it "compelling". I posted it as it attempts to answer your question from the point of view of formal logic, circuitous gobbledegook if you prefer.

The veracity or otherwise of the big bang isn't relevant to the author's arguement, it's a possibility that can be entertained to establish a point at which creation occured.

The use of God too has no independent meaning, it's a convenient term for a supposed causative agent the nature of which has no bearing on the arguement.

[questor]

Ugh, please read the link and relate which sentences or paragraphs you think

are most convincing against the possibility of a creator.

[ughaibu]

Questor: The idea of the article is to build a consistent logical arguement, it's not about individual, seperate sentences. Also, there's no reason for you to assume that I will find any of it convincing.

You have asked the question 'is creationism logical?', this article attempts to answer your question in the specific terms in which it's couched. It is the work of a professional logician and concludes that creationism is not logically defensible. Your response to the article has been that you dont give Hume's logic much credence, if this thread is about your personal feelings, you have chosen a misleading title. As the thread purports to be an investigation of the logical viability of creationism, you will need to respond to that article with logical criticism. That is to say, with arguements that can be understood by any reader, not with statements about concepts exclusively internal to yourself. Specifically, what is unsatisfactory about Hume's definition and how does it relate to the arguement developed?

[questor]

Ugh, i'm really not interested in dissecting points gleaned from the link you posted. as a wise person once said to me: ''i don't want to get involved in no conversation where the answer don't mean nothing''.

if you wish to post your reasons against intelligent creation, i would be happy to post mine in favor of intelligent creation. this would save us a lot of time and stay with the intent of the thread.

[ughaibu]

Questor: You chose the title of this thread. I have provided a link that answers your question. You have three basic choices; 1) accept the arguement that creationism is not logical 2) reject the arguement without any counter-arguements (your present position) which from the point of view of logic leaves creationism as not logical 3) provide logical counter-arguements that aim to establish the logical basis of creationism.

If you are not interested in the logical defensibility of creationism, I suggest you change the topic title.

[anglepose]

are you trying to premote faith or create doubt or sumthing this subject is pointless since its over worked and There is NO proof in the slightest NOT EVEN enough for putting it in the philosophy area

[questor]

Ugh, why do you think it is logical for you to define what i should do on my own thread? if you are not interested in discussing this issue as i have asked, why not pass on by? if you read about Hume, he was an avowed atheist who

argued against the existence of God. my argument is not about God.

[ughaibu]

Questor: I take it from your reply that you have no intention of attempting to counter the arguement presented and that you have made a tacit agreement that creationism is not logical.

[questor]

Ugh, i have trouble understanding what you want. you personally have presented no argument or contribution to the thread. you want me to argue

with a premise from a link you posted, but have not studied. for what reason? do you not have your own thoughts on the matter? i guess this is a continuation of the dust-up on a previous post where you demanded i present some information so you would not have to achieve the knowledge on your own. do we need to waste more time on this?

[ughaibu]

Questor: There has been no "dust-up", what I pointed out to you on a different thread is known as the burden of proof. On that occasion you could not support your argument as you didn't substantiate the assertion you based it on.

In the present thread, you have asked the question 'is creationism logical?' I have provided a link that answers that question, the reason that I did so is because your question suggested that you wanted an answer. I have never seen any arguement offering a logical basis for creationism and as it seems to be a popular obsession, I suspect from this circumstance that I never will see one. From the above it should be clear to you that I have contributed to the thread and presented an argument, and you should be able to understand my reason for doing so and my thoughts on the question.

[questor]

the previous ''dust-up'' was caused by you challenging my assertion that American kids were achieving less in education than many less advanced countries. instead of you trying to search for pertinent information on the subject, you demanded that i furnish you with information. why should i do your work for you? this information is readily available.

now we are involved in a useless conversation where you want me to debate a link you posted which you haven't even read thoroughly. since you won't/can't post any argument of your own concerning my thread, i see no reason to continue wasting our time.

[CraigD]

Interesting as the dialog here (primarily between questor and ughaibu) is from a debate and sociological perspective, I feel compelled to interrupt with my own observations and opinion.

 

Arguments for and against creation are numerous. They’re extensively documented, forming a large part of the literature of Theology and Philosophy, going back over 2,000 years to some of their earliest documents. Many, but not all, of these arguments both for an against follow strong and accepted formal rules of logic. None, to my knowledge, are without equally well reasoned criticisms and objections, thus none enjoy the uncontested status of, for example, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, a formal mathematical proof.

 

One of the earliest and perhaps simplest arguments for the existence of a creator, instant of creation, first cause, demiurge, etc. is the cosmological argument. Simplified, this postulates

• Every event has a cause
  
• There are a finite number of events
  

and, very logically, concludes

• There must be a first event for which there was no cause
  

The most obvious objections to this argument simply note that its postulates are unproven, and possibly unprovable.

 

A second type of objection notes that, even if there existed a first cause, it may be a poor fit for the common conception of a “creator”, in that it need not have been intelligent or conscious, nor have survived in any form identifiable with its original. However, since the starting post of this thread enjoins us to “not presuppose a diety”, this type of objection, though of great practical and historical interest, is not relevant or appropriate.

[ughaibu]

Questor: Whether or not the argument posted is my own has no effect on it's validity. I didn't design the computer that I'm using or the language that I'm writing in, these are part of the heritage and I can avail myself of them to communicate, the same with the link that I posted. I dont care whether or not you believe in creation, your question was as to it's logical status and that question is addressed by the link posted. Further, as I dont care about your beliefs concerning creation I do not want you to debate this article. If you want to attempt to demonstrate that creationism is logically defensible, deal with the argument presented. If you accept that creationism is not logically defensible, dont bother. After all, what does it matter if your belief isn't logical?

You still dont appear to have understood about my posts concerning your exchange with Cedars and the burden of proof. I had no interest in the discussion, I simply pointed out to you that it was your responsibility to support your position.

[questor]

Craig, you said:

''A second type of objection notes that, even if there existed a first cause, it may be a poor fit for the common conception of a “creator”, in that it need not have been intelligent or conscious, nor have survived in any form identifiable with its original. However, since the starting post of this thread enjoins us to “not presuppose a diety”, this type of objection, though of great practical and historical interest, is not relevant or appropriate''

if a first cause exists and created the universe, it would have to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent in order to do the job. by

that measure, it would also be intelligent and conscious. since the mind of many cannot seem to separate the idea of diety from a creator, i tried to get by that stumbling block by not presupposing a man created idea of a diety. we cannot prove this argument negatively or positively, but IMHO, the weight of evidence is FOR intelligent creation. so far i have had no one give me two or three provable or observable reasons against ID.

[Erasmus00]

if a first cause exists and created the universe, it would have to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent in order to do the job. by

that measure, it would also be intelligent and conscious.

 

Why do you assume that? This is your assumption, with no logic at all to support it.

 

so far i have had no one give me two or three provable or observable reasons against ID.

 

And so far, you have given no "provable" or logical reasons to believe in ID. As I tried to point out in the begininng of this thread, none of your "observations supporting ID" actually unambiguously support ID.

-Will

[questor]

Erasmus, i respect your mind, but here you have made statements against my position without backing them up. if you have proof there was no ID, i would like to hear it. if your evidence weighs heavier than mine, i will change my mind. my mind is open to facts.