Quote:
Klvino [ORB] said:
Jack, I'm in Dr. Hawking's camp that there may have been a big-bang in the means portrayed by popular entertainment. That the universe has always existed and always will as it lacks the matter and material to create an ending in the form of a "Big Crunch". I don't see an "intelligent design" to the universe even when going down the chain and examining each link. Now I do believe there is a cause behind the formation of the universe that is natural, not intelligent. That cause is the optimization of energy.
Now you are right, this is a question of what we each think is more logical. However, his "One way or the other" is a Logical Fallacy. It's assuming if A is true, B is false. or vice versa. By far it's his worst fallacy of them and a common fallacy used against proponents of evolution and other theories. There is no proof to such a fallacy as it is hardly a black and white subject as you clearly argued and You yourself,
|
So the concept of non-overlapping sets whose union is U, such as A and A', is a fallacy? It's a fallacy to treat the set of real numbers as three cases: <k, ==k, and >k (for some real value of k) when the function under scrutiny calls for it? Interesting.
Quote:
Klvino [ORB] said: in your rebuttal just used the logical fallacy of accent by placing emphasis on certain phrases in your comments.
|
So my pointing out that you didn't actually address any of his arguments - at all - in a large section you quoted - is a fallacy? Interesting. So I picked a little bit of a method you aren't quite used to. I suspect you may be a little trigger-happy on fallacies.
Quote:
Klvino [ORB] said:
This is what science is for me: The process by which the illogical, the fallacy, and the fiction is stripped away and all that remains is the reality, the fact, the truth and this process is ongoing, it does not reach an end at any time. This itself is the processes behind evolution. It doesn't have all the answers, but it looks for them. Progress.
Creationism, however, is the exact opposite. It presents itself as having all the answers already and you don't need to go farther. This in itself is a means of preventing people from even looking for more.
|
Gee, and you were slamming me for being black & white. Talk about your double standard.
Quote:
Klvino [ORB] said:
Now, Jack, you argue about the infinite when we much consider the plight of the creator-god in question. Who created him? If no one did, then has he always existed? If so, how?
|
Nobody, far as I've read up in The Source. Yes, as far as I've read up in The Source. The precise form of God's existance is not addressed in The Source, as far as I'm aware. This is something we probably will not know until after doomsday.
And you're dodging again.