Shit Logic

credits: deer bear otter

In the heavens and the earth are Signs(45:3), and in the animals(:4), the alternation of Night and Day, rain, wind(:5) ... and that nasty old unbeliever, “when he learns something of Our Signs, he takes them in jest"(:9).

Well yeah, I did that, because you're funny. I try to take you seriously, I really do, but the holes in your arguments are big enough for star clusters to form: The world exists, therefore, face a rock in Arabia to bang your head on the ground.

Would I be too forward to suggest your chain of logic is missing some links? If I suggest you don't have a chain, just two links held apart by vast abysms of gullible? Your assumptions, let me show you them.

I'll give you your answer to question 1, yes, there's all those stars and wind and critters, that's the Universe, call it U [for Uzza. lol. See what I did there? (you can call it “a force or amalgamation of forces such as space-time and gravity”, but then you're just being geeky)]. Most likely it's always been there, but you say it had a creator, call it Al, so you have to go back and ask if Al exists, and if Al had a creator. You'll catch up with me and Occam at Q3, where we have to start describing U and Al. No! You don't get to look in your book until we get to Q13! No peeksies. And buddy, you need reasons to make your huge Spiderman leaps to any of these conclusions. I'm not seeing them in this book.

**suggestions on how to improve this flowchart will make me go all tingly


PersonalFailure said...

I am incapable of following flow charts- a trait I apparently share with Mad Mo.

Geds said...

Shouldn't the "no" and the "yes" on the "Does it have a Creator" be reversed? If we're looking at their assumptions the No Creator/Universe Exists issue would create logic fail. Universe Exists/Yes Creator is simply the assumption upon which the system is built.

Otherwise, good stuff.

uzza said...

it's confusing alright. Here's how I figured that:

does it(=univ) have a creator? --yes -->
does it(=creator) exist? --yes -->
does it(=creator)have a creator? --> no, -->
is it(=univ or creator) conscious? ......

Geds said...

Okay, so you're going with the logic fail of the cosmological argument.

Yeah, it's a bit complicated. Both sides could conceivably claim a failure of logic and since there are only two answers it won't make sense to someone.

uzza said...

I'm not, really. A person who accepts the cosmological argument would answer Y,Y,Y, N; and ask at step 3, “Is the creator conscious?”.
One who rejects the C.A. would answer Y, N; and at Q3 be asking “Is this universe which has no beginning, conscious?”

Even though they'd be applying it to different 'things', arguably, they need to decide if the notion of consciousness can be applied meaningfully to that 'thing', which is what Q3 asks. They might kill each other before they got that far though.