I think I offended someone...
please, 'tis not a high HORSE, it's a pink unicorn...an invisible one at that.
Please take note, Ross, that none of my comments were personal in the least, neither were they intended to be. I'm sorry if my attitude or my opinions have caused offense, but I cannot change the former, and you should have been prepared for the latter, coming into this forum, no?
Anyways, it seems to me that it is you who presume.
You say that I repudiate logic because I disagree with your theorem...that sounds a BIT specious, no? I don't agree that your argument is logical in the first place, therefore it isn't much of a counterargument to state that your argument is irrefutable logic, and that I must be crazy not to agree with it. Hmph.
No, Ross, I do not agree that the basic precepts you put forth are irrefutable logic. I do not agree that the source of the material universe must be independent of it, either. Since I do not agree with said statements, you cannot in good faith quote them as arguments against me, since they are the very subject of discussion.
I would say something right now, but you would probably construe it (misconstrue it) as irredeemably arrogant, so I
won't
'The theory of an infinite universe does deny logic because it doesn't present any viable explanations for the existence of life.'
this is a really interesting statement, but there's no proof to back it up. How does an infinite universe not present explanations for life? Enlighten me.
The existence of God indeed does defy ALL principles of logic, since assuming that a God exists that is omnipotent first of all is a fantasy, i.e. we are assuming facts that cannot be proven (God's sentience, God's status as an entity and not a force, God's divine will, God's omnipotence) We are 'imagining' a being with all these traits which go beyond what is necessary to explain the universe's creation.
To explain the universe we have today, we have put forth a number of theories:
-That the universe is eternal, and was always there
-That there are infinite universes, and that this is only one in an infinite chain of universes stretching back in time forever
-That an omnipotent, omniscient deity with a divine plan and will has always existed and always will, and created this universe out of divine whim.
Now the third seems a bit a departure from reality, no? In fact it looks as if someone is trying to rationalise the fact that everything in our environment has a beginning and an end, and that the only thing that doesn't must be beyond us in every way, since we couldn't POSSIBLY conceive anything different.
As I said, escapism at it's finest.
If you want to argue that the universe was created by an unknown, not necessarily sentient, not necessarily omnipotent force, fine, it's a valid theory, the Greeks came up with it as well, it was called the demi-urgos, or demiurge, simply said a 'creator' nothing more, nothing less. To attach myriad subsidiary roles such as justicar, judge, and general keeper of the peace is wishful thinking, and as it does not contribute to the logical veracity of your theory of a creator entity, should play no part in the debate.
Allow me to clarify the basic process of logic I presented previously.
This is the accepted mathematical method of proof, for any given theorem.
You must assume that your theory is WRONG. Then proceed in logical steps, still assuming your theory is the complete opposite of what you want (i.e. There is no omnipotent God, and he did not create the universe) until you come to a logical fallacy, a contradiction in terms, or a paradox. At this point, you safely assume that since y is wrong, x , y's opposite, must be true. In essence, you are proving every possible result wrong, and coming up with the one right answer. This can also be done inversely, by proving your theorem is right, and proving that it is mutually exclusive (if it is right, nothing else can ALSO be right) since we are in a situation in which we have several theories, and none can be proven right or wrong, it's illogical to believe that your God IS in fact, logical, just as it is illogical to believe in any of the other theories.
The conclusion? WE JUST DON'T KNOW YET.
That's logic's two cents anyways.
I hope I haven't further offended you with my opinions.
If my opinions HAVE offended you, please refer to your first sentence in your last post.
-game & kirby
(again, nothing personal)