Nothing from nothing leaves nothing (to Till)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> BRIDEAN

> In truth A=~A is very tricky when applied to real life subjective things.



> For

> example let A = "Chocolate ice cream tastes good".  Now ~A becomes

> "Chocolate ice cream does not taste good".  Since you have a problem with

> A=~A then which is true?  Logic can only be applied to non-subjective

> ideas.


DEREK
So existence is subjective?
I really fail to see how you are pointing out a loophole in the flaw in a
First Cause argument.

BRIDEAN
God is a subjective idea.  This is born out by the fact that there are more
opinions about what God is then there is about what flavors of ice cream
are good.  "Good" is a subjective thing which exists.  As to whether or
not existence itself is subjective I haven't seen a proof either way. 
Perhaps
you can prove that existence is not subjective?

DEREK

> Since morality is subjective, this produces serious problems if you try

to 

> use logic to prove or disprove that God is moral.


DEREK
Which is far from what I was trying to do.  I see no way one could claim
morality could exist in any objective sense.
After reading the above responses by you, I'm wondering if you might have
become confused as to what I was trying to claim.
I never said energy could exist outside the Universe, Terry did.
I never said morality is objective, Terry did.
and I certainly never claimed that A=~A could be applied to subjective
experiences.  Where did you get that?
 

> > TERRY

> > it must have been created, if it does not have a beginning it was not

> > created. The matter or energy that composes the universe could 

possibly

> > have existed prior to the actual big bang, but the actual universe

itself

> > had a beginning and therefore it would have needed an intelligent

creator

> > to formulate it into the complex universe that exist today.  A first

> > grader should be able to understand that  where there is an effect,

there

> > must be a cause.  You used an illustration about a plant blowing up and

> > parts of it falling down into a pattern that spelled cat. (actually I

> > think you understated the scenario with the use of the word cat)  In

this

> > particular case the word C-A-T appears but let's suppose the Gettysburg

> > Address was there before the plant blew up, what if it had always been

> > there, what would you conclude then?

> 

> DEREK

> This bit is very confusing, but it appears you are claiming the

Universe's

> physical substance could exist before the Universe.  Presumably, God

> merely organized this primeval Chaos.  Interestingly, this is a very

pagan

> concept.

> 

> BRIDEAN

> Since there is no real difference between matter and energy, then

basically

> you shouldn't have a problem with the Universe's physical substance

> existing

> before the Universe.


DEREK
Umm, actually, I would have a problem with that.  The existence of
matter(or energy) means the existence of a universe.  I was merely trying
to sort out the statements made by Terry.

BRIDEAN
Thanks for the clarification.

• Previous message: Nothing from nothing leaves nothing (to Till)
• Next message: Nothing from nothing leaves nothing (to Till)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]