Religion in a nutshell

[Mathias]

Despite being Brazilian, I follow the theology of India, ie, I don't eat shrimp or lobster.
And also because I hate ... <*))))))><

I haven't tried lobster. (I heard it's very good though and shrimp is good.) But how do you hate fish?  :shock:  It's yummy.

I hate lobster and shrimp (taste is very similar), but fish I like, specially japanese food!!!!

[mendacium remedium]

Lobsters are a neccesary reality!
Many people believe in the neccesary Lobster, although many make up false attributes.
So if a lobster exists, but someone lies and invents a cult saying the lobster does strange bewildering things
therefore the lobster does not exist!
Irrespective if a lobster is neccesary or not!
Lobsters are also non-physical unnecessary beings which solve paradoxes in the universe.
Lets call this lobster a fairy and have a strawman party !

Premise #1:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the cause of the universe is crustacean.

Premise #2:

The crustaceous cause of the universe is due to either chance, design, or pinchers. It cannot be due to chance or design. Therefore, it is due to pinchers.

Premise #3:

The crustaceous, pincher-bearing cause of the universe must be either lobster or crab. It is not crab. Therefore it is lobster.

I used less unfounded leaps then Bill Craig usually does, therefore it must be true.

I think that requires a new fallacy in argument - perhaps a straw-man false dichotomy?

Premise 1 -

Physical existence can not exist infinite in the past. Actual infinities host a number of paradoxical and contradictory properties, therefore there needs to be a non-physical 'reality' you can call it a lobster.


Premise 2 -

Everything appears wonderfully designed. Either there is an intelligent designer - you can call this a lobster too, or it all was the result of blind non-lobster chance and lots and lots of holes like lobster -cheese in the lobster records.

Premise 3-

There is fine tuning. Either there are an infinite number of universes to explain the unimaginably precise fine tuning, or the universe is designed. (This is not a use of the antrhopic principle). An infinite conceptually can not exist. Nothing can be infinite. Thus, the all intelligent non-physical entity - you can call this a lobster, was behind this.



Now, some may say this lobster has never been seen, but societies all across the world have somehow believed the need for a lobster...which is so surprising for something so contingent, irrespective of the names for this lobster, they all believed in the need for a lobster...

[Colanth]

Premise 1 -

Physical existence can not exist infinite in the past.

Why not?  (An assertion isn't evidence.)

Actual infinities host a number of paradoxical and contradictory properties

Name them, otherwise that's just an assertion.

therefore

You  haven't established anything yet, so there's no "therefore".

there needs to be a non-physical 'reality'

Define "non-physical reality".

Premise 2 -

Everything appears wonderfully designed.

Disease.  The fact that almost all of the universe is deadly to man.  In fact, almost nothing appears to  be designed, wonderfully or otherwise.

Premise 3-

There is fine tuning.

All that means is that if things were different they would be different.  "Tuning" in that statement is an intransitive verb.

Either there are an infinite number of universes to explain the unimaginably precise fine tuning, or the universe is designed.

Or there can't (for reasons we don't know) be any other form of universe.  Or it's just amazing but the first and only universe just happens to be right for us to have come about.  Or any of billions of other things having nothing to do with a designer.

The glaring error you're making here is the assumption that we know the answer.

An infinite conceptually can not exist.

Due to the limits of human conception.  Which is totally irrelevant in this discussion.

Nothing can be infinite.

Another assertion.  Evidence?

Now, some may say this lobster has never been seen, but societies all across the world have somehow believed the need for a lobster.

Still not evidentiary, though.

..which is so surprising for something so contingent, irrespective of the names for this lobster, they all believed in the need for a lobster...

Because they're all human, and humans have an inherent need to believe?  Or is it a miracle that all elephants prefer grass to zebra meat?

[Sleeper]

First of all, does anyone notice the irony that this discussion is popping up again in this of all threads?

I think that requires a new fallacy in argument - perhaps a straw-man false dichotomy?

Premise 1 -

Physical existence can not exist infinite in the past. Actual infinities host a number of paradoxical and contradictory properties, therefore there needs to be a non-physical 'reality' you can call it a lobster.

Ok. You're veering toward the cosmological argument again, so let me cut you off at the pass. Here you need to provide a frame of reference for 4 things: infinity, non-physicality, extra-universal existence, and nothingness. Otherwise you cannot deduce anything about their properties. Until then, I'll stick with what the people who are actually studying it are saying.

Premise 2 -

Everything appears wonderfully designed. Either there is an intelligent designer - you can call this a lobster too, or it all was the result of blind non-lobster chance and lots and lots of holes like lobster -cheese in the lobster records.

Everything appears wastefully designed and is fraught with immeasurable failure. Chance would probably mutually annihilate vast amounts of matter (the majority of matter created by the Big Bang, if I'm not mistaken), create a universe where life can evolve in less than a fraction of it, and create planets where 99% of its living creatures go extinct. A designer would either be not intelligent, he made a mistake (accidently spilled some universe on the carpet), or has a purpose for all this waste and failure. You've got an in with God, what's the purpose?

Premise 3-

There is fine tuning. Either there are an infinite number of universes to explain the unimaginably precise fine tuning, or the universe is designed. (This is not a use of the antrhopic principle). An infinite conceptually can not exist. Nothing can be infinite. Thus, the all intelligent non-physical entity - you can call this a lobster, was behind this.

You keep going back to this "infinity" well like someone argued it. But if you want fine tuning, I'm your huckleberry:

99% of the universe is made mostly of stuff that would kill us. 80% of the earth is covered in stuff that will kill us. Our ancestors died for hundreds of thousands of years in childbirth, or of exposure, or starvation, or predators, or simply because of their teeth coming in. Even today we have no control over the diseases and viruses that can kill us. The very air we breathe can be the most efficient way of transmitting disease, and one of the most deadly viruses to ever plague our species is mostly spread by the very act of reproduction - carrying on our species can kill us. Intelligent life has existed on this planet for a half a second. There were billions of years when we couldn't have existed, and there will be billions more to come. The universe will be nothingness once again. Our sun is going to explode and engulf the solar system, and there's another solar system heading straight for us.

Fine tuned? Again, you have it in with God - what's his purpose in all this?

Now, some may say this lobster has never been seen, but societies all across the world have somehow believed the need for a lobster...which is so surprising for something so contingent, irrespective of the names for this lobster, they all believed in the need for a lobster...

Some also say that that fact alone demonstrates the evolution of ideas and how long it takes simply for memes to shift and die out, much less biology. Our ancestors may have needed (or at least preferred) the belief, but we don't, and we're slowly realizing that.

Some of us.

[mnmelt]

The title of this thread really should have been...

Religion in a Lobster Shell.

 :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:

[NonXNonExX]

As i've said before, a "non-physical reality is a necessary entity whose son went around doing minor miracles and cheap tricks in first century Palestine. I hope this doesn't make any of my crustacean friends crabby.

[Hydra009]

First of all, does anyone notice the irony that this discussion is popping up again in this of all threads?

YES.

"OP makes a rant thread lampooning preachy theists and the incessant expectation to believe what they believe?  Looks like a great place to share my apologetic arguments!"


It also doesn't help that they're all rehashes of incredibly common arguments that we'll all seen before thousands of times.  I mean, watchmaker?  Fine-tuning?  What's next, TAG?   #-o