Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him

[Rasorow]

Could it also be that God created us.. but we have recreated God?

Rasorow

[Electrum]

A basic scientific precept is that of cause & effect. If we see the effect, there must be a cause. There is wide agreement among scientists that the universe had a beginning. Most also agree that before that beginning, something real must have existed. Some scientists talk about ever-existing energy. Others postulate a primordial chaos as the preexisting condition. Whatever terms are used, most presuppose the existence of something—something without a beginning—that extended back infinitely. So, when it comes to life, the universe & everything, the basic progression is like this:
The Universe was either always their or had a beginning
If the Universe had a beginning, it was with a cause or without a cause
If their was a cause, it was by something eternal or someone eternal.
The question for each of us is what is more logical.
The deep one digs into the fabric of life, the universe & everything, the more we are struck by the intelligence of design. It is outside of human experience to have intellegence without design. For me, the only logical solution is their was a designer.

[Azselendor]

I recall once, and I may have mentioned this before, is a lecture steven hawkins once gave and the pope (or someone of his staff) read about later on. The pope then went on to tell dr. hawkins that he commends his study of events after the big bang and that he should avoid studying the big bang itself as it was a 'divine act' and man should not understand such things. The thing about this is that dr. hawkins was lecturing that the universe didn't even have a big bang to begin with. That it always existed and always will. Hawkins proposed the idea since the Universe may lack to matter to produce an ending that it must lack the matter to produce a beginning as well.

Electrum, again your arguements are full of logical fallacies. You are appealing to science to prove religion right and science wrong.

[Electrum]

Klvino [ORB] said:
Electrum, again your arguements are full of logical fallacies. You are appealing to science to prove religion right and science wrong.

To the contrary, I'm stating that that science & belief in a creator can co-exist

[Azselendor]

That I certainly agree. Faith and Science can exist in the world together. The point I make is that Faith has no place as Science unless we are talking about the mechanics by which religion function. Faith is the means by which we live, not the means by which the universe functions. Science, on the other hand, has no right to be a religion, but an method by which we can obtain answers to questions we ask.

My problem was with your arguments for that being based in logical fallacy to justify it.

[Electrum]

Klvino [ORB] said:
That I certainly agree. Faith and Science can exist in the world together. The point I make is that Faith has no place as Science unless we are talking about the mechanics by which religion function. Faith is the means by which we live, not the means by which the universe functions. Science, on the other hand, has no right to be a religion, but an method by which we can obtain answers to questions we ask.

My problem was with your arguments for that being based in logical fallacy to justify it.

Am interesting viewpoint. Albert Einstien said: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Perhaps you know better.
I having difficulty understanding what you perceive as fallacy. Is it that Cause & effect is an established scientific principle? Is it that the Universe had a beginning? Or is it just using these things to come to a solution that you don’t like?
One big fallacy is that science has ruled out the possibility of an intelligent designer in the creation of Life, the Universe & everything. Though such is promoted by some in the scientific community, Science can neither prove nor disprove such a thing. Science, true science, deals with the physically tangable, and such a discovery is outside it’s perview. My statement merely shows that the existence of a Creator is a logically viable solution, and for me, the most logical.
An unfortunate truth in the scientific community is that there is a political side to it. John L. Casti in his book Paradigms Lost stated: “Scientific truth is determined at least as much by the social climate of the times as by the dictates of reason and logic alone” Unfortunately, as politics in ant other arena, some nasty things take place, including intimination and peer pressure.
In his book Science under siege, Michael Fumento was discussing the scientific controversy over Dioxin, a key ingredient in Agent Orange. He made this observation: “We are all, depending on whom you listen to, either potential victims of poisoning or potential victims of gross disinformation.” Isn’t politics grand! It makes it hard to dig in and determine what is really scientificly factual. Unfortunately, many just get swept along with the current, going along with what is popular without ever trying to look beneath the surface. Fortunately, there have been those not happy with the staus quo, or else we would al bw learning Alchemy.
Have you ever heard some expert say something like: All reasonable scientist accept …, or Only the uneducated would deny … This is a form of intimidation & peer pressure. It has been employed in many areas, including the existence, or non-existance of God. In this area, there are plenty of well respected experts in the different scientific fields that recognize, not even the plausibility of a Divine Intellect, but also the logic of His existence.
PHYSICS professor Ulrich J. Becker, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stated when commenting on the existence of God: “How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any compelling answer ever given. If you discovered how one wheel in the ‘clock’ turns—you may speculate how the rest move, but you are not entitled to call this scientific and better leave alone the question of who wound up the spring.”
Mathematics professor John E. Fornaess, of Princeton University, was asked for his thoughts on the existence of God, he replied: “I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the universe on all levels from elementary particles to living beings to superclusters of galaxies.”
Physics professor Henry Margenau, of Yale University, said that he was convinced that the laws of nature were created by God, adding: “God created the universe out of nothing in an act which also brought time into existence.”
The book The Mystery of Life’s Origin, three scientists explain that a Creator is a plausible explanation for life’s origin.
There are a lot more, but, hey, I’ve used enough of this thread.
One more Qoute, more in line with AT’s thread:
Voltaire stated, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”
Now I know I’m going to get flamed, though I really don’t know why some find me so threatening. To keep it from getting out of hand, I will not respond to such flaming.
By the way, I respect the all the views that have been stated in this thread. Keep it up.

[Azselendor]

Electrum said:
Am interesting viewpoint. Albert Einstien said: “Science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Perhaps you know better.

That's a cheap shot right there, personal attack and a foul on you. Don't debate if you can't keep it clean.

Electrum said:
I having difficulty understanding what you perceive as fallacy. Is it that Cause & effect is an established scientific principle? Is it that the Universe had a beginning? Or is it just using these things to come to a solution that you don’t like?
One big fallacy is that science has ruled out the possibility of an intelligent designer in the creation of Life, the Universe & everything. Though such is promoted by some in the scientific community, Science can neither prove nor disprove such a thing. Science, true science, deals with the physically tangable, and such a discovery is outside it’s perview. My statement merely shows that the existence of a Creator is a logically viable solution, and for me, the most logical.
An unfortunate truth in the scientific community is that there is a political side to it. John L. Casti in his book Paradigms Lost stated: “Scientific truth is determined at least as much by the social climate of the times as by the dictates of reason and logic alone” Unfortunately, as politics in ant other arena, some nasty things take place, including intimination and peer pressure.
In his book Science under siege, Michael Fumento was discussing the scientific controversy over Dioxin, a key ingredient in Agent Orange. He made this observation: “We are all, depending on whom you listen to, either potential victims of poisoning or potential victims of gross disinformation.” Isn’t politics grand! It makes it hard to dig in and determine what is really scientificly factual. Unfortunately, many just get swept along with the current, going along with what is popular without ever trying to look beneath the surface. Fortunately, there have been those not happy with the staus quo, or else we would al bw learning Alchemy.
Have you ever heard some expert say something like: All reasonable scientist accept …, or Only the uneducated would deny … This is a form of intimidation & peer pressure. It has been employed in many areas, including the existence, or non-existance of God. In this area, there are plenty of well respected experts in the different scientific fields that recognize, not even the plausibility of a Divine Intellect, but also the logic of His existence.
PHYSICS professor Ulrich J. Becker, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stated when commenting on the existence of God: “How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any compelling answer ever given. If you discovered how one wheel in the ‘clock’ turns—you may speculate how the rest move, but you are not entitled to call this scientific and better leave alone the question of who wound up the spring.”
Mathematics professor John E. Fornaess, of Princeton University, was asked for his thoughts on the existence of God, he replied: “I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the universe on all levels from elementary particles to living beings to superclusters of galaxies.”
Physics professor Henry Margenau, of Yale University, said that he was convinced that the laws of nature were created by God, adding: “God created the universe out of nothing in an act which also brought time into existence.”
The book The Mystery of Life’s Origin, three scientists explain that a Creator is a plausible explanation for life’s origin.
There are a lot more, but, hey, I’ve used enough of this thread.
One more Qoute, more in line with AT’s thread:
Voltaire stated, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”
Now I know I’m going to get flamed, though I really don’t know why some find me so threatening. To keep it from getting out of hand, I will not respond to such flaming.
By the way, I respect the all the views that have been stated in this thread. Keep it up.

Now let's list your logical fallacies from various fallacy-arguments you've posted over time on this subject.

- Ad hoc, The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument.
- Affirmation of the consequent, This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true."
- Anecdotal evidence
- Argumentum ad antiquitatem, This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been." The opposite of Argumentum ad Novitatem.
- Argumentum ad hominem, Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.
- Argumentum ad ignorantiam, Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.
- Argumentum ad logicam, This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Remember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.
- Argumentum ad nauseam, This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
- Argumentum ad populum, This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language.
- Argumentum ad misericordiam, This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.
- Argumentum ad verecundiam, The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion.
- Bifurcation, Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false dichotomy", bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.
- Circulus in demonstrando, This fallacy occurs if you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. Often, the proposition is rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument.
- Converse accident / Hasty generalization
- Converting a conditional, This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if B then A."
- Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events. (This is the fallacy most commonly used t support Noah's Flood and I included it for that bit of trivia)
- Denial of the antecedent, This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false."
- The fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter
- Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms, Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument.
- The extended analogy, The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general rule is being argued over. The fallacy is to assume that mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are analogous to each other.
- Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion, The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion.
- The Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature, The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One Version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar.
- Non causa pro causa, The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when something is identified as the cause of an event, but it has not actually been shown to be the cause.
- Non sequitur, A non sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which aren't logically connected with it.
- Petitio principii / Begging the question, This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form.
- Plurium interrogationum / Many questions, This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic) answer to a complex question.
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc, The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened before that event.
- Red herring, This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.
- Reification / Hypostatization, Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing.
- Shifting the burden of proof, The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
- The slippery slope argument, This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.
- Straw man, The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.
- Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle / "A is based on B" fallacies / "...is a type of..." fallacies, These fallacies occur if you attempt to argue that things are in some way similar, but you don't actually specify in what way they are similar.

These fallacies are pretty much entirely from http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html which includes several more fallacies that didn't fit properly. i encourage all to read it because it's useful in more than just religious debates. Of course, I've also commited a couple of these fallacies too and I'll admit to them. Hopefully, electrum, this clearifies my point of your logical fallacies in your arguments.

As for you getting flamed, the best way to avoid it is to not flame in the first place (Yes, I know that too is a logical fallacy but you get my point!)

[Jack Simth]

Of course, you just claimed that he has, you said little, if anything, of how, or when. What would that be? Red herring, perhaps? Reification, possibly? Non-Sequiter, perchance? Ad homien? Argumentum ad logicam? Shifting the burden of proof, maybe?

As for the Posts he has made recently in this thread, yeah, there could be a fair amount of appeal to authority, aurumentum ad nausium/popularum, but that's mostly used in support, not as his main arguments. Fluff, even, easily thrown out to no real effect.

Seriously though, can you actually get around his point that if you follow cause and effect backwards, you must either conclude that at some point there was a cause that did not have a cause of it's own (a termination to an infinite recursion), OR conclude that there was an ever-present (if potentially ever-changing) "something" that pre-existed to infinity (either another form of termination to an infinite recursion, or a conclusion that the recursion continues infinitely)? Note that he did not specify which must be so, nor did he specify there was any concrete way to choose, nor did he specify any neccessitated form to the "something" when that route is chosen - in fact, he said "The question for each of us is what is more logical." (emphasis added)
He did not specify that anyone must of necessity pick a specific one over the other.
"For me, the only logical solution is their was a designer. " (emphasis added)
He did not specify that this must be the only conclusion - he specified very clearly that it was HIS conclusion, after specifying that all such conclusions pretty much amount to opinion. Do you have a way out of his "One or the Other" logical proof? Perhaps one or more additional option(s) that fit(s) without being a subset or mixture of one or more of his listed potentialities? If so, please, enlighten me.

[tesco samoa]

perhaps a little change of topic.

Evolution vs co existance vs Divine.

What is everyone thoughts on this and what should be taught in schools.

I feel the Evolution is a theory just like the Divine Versions .

As Evolution is based on faith as well. Since no one can prove how Evolution began or what steps are required to say develop an eye.

Thoughts ?

[Phoenix-D]

Ah, that argument again.

Point A: Science uses "theory" different from the way most people, yourself included, uses it. Hypothesis is the word you're looking for. (GRAVITY is a theory..)

Point B: Science, including the theory of evolution, has to be falseafiable. By definition religion is not.

Point C: Yes, we -can- show what steps are needed to make an eye. You start with someone like, say, the light-sending organs on a jellyfish and go from there..and those organs are quite simple. The irreducable complexity argument doesn' t work.

Point D: I always have to ask this question. WHICH Divine Version? Perhaps you'd like the Navjo, or Hindu Version?