 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu |
Submitter: מאיר בן שלמה
Location: S. Korea
bPâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu ha-Tza•diqꞋ:
2003.07.28 –
[Mei•irꞋ Bên-ShᵊlōmꞋōh] "Thanks for your quick and most hospitable response! I will gladly continue this interesting discussion and, I hope, deepen my own understanding in the process. I'm also very much anticipating the publication of your docu-novel."So the question of whether there is a Creator is a prerequisite to discussing the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ."
There are also some additional conditions before we arrive at the Creator portrayed in the Tor•âhꞋ; beyond the question of there being a Creator, there are also questions concerning the nature of the Creator, assuming there is one. Namely, 1) is the Creator interested in interacting with its creation vs. being the disinterested Watchmaker of the Deists; and 2) is the Creator basically truthful, e.g. when the Creator bestows revelation is the Creator telling the truth."
[Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 2003.07.28] Point of logic. As you point out below, "assuming there is one" is petitio principii. If we can simply assume there is a Creator then we can, just as easily, assume the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ and dispense with all of the discussion. The point of my previous message was to deal with this question so that the discussion can no longer be repeatedly thrown back to "but what if there's no Creator." We're going to explode that myth, then we can move on.
[Mei•irꞋ Bên-ShᵊlōmꞋōh 2003.07.27] "Let me state before proceeding that as a devil's advocate, the views and questions I present are not necessarily my own (although I always am interested to see them answered). However they are the views and questions of a great many people in the estranged category and, therefore, they are relevent and not merely pedantic.
Your opening question is a good point, and since you've left it to me to decide which way to go from here, I'd like to cheat a little bit and travel down both paths to see what lies there, one at a time. So here goes. Seeing as you've already stated that one of the possible answers to that question leads nowhere, lets try going down that short dead-end road for a moment (we can always quickly backtrack the way we came) before venturing onto the long discussion-generating "there is a Creator" answer, since certainly there are a sizeable number of people who are atheists, or who for whatever reason doubt the existence of a Creator and just can't bring themselves to believe. There are also religions, such as Buddhism, that get along quite well without any belief in a Creator Deity.
So, what then? If someone comes to you and answers your question in the negative, "there is no Creator," is there nothing more to discuss? Of course, it is impossible for anyone to completely prove that there is or isn't a Creator. So it is impossible for anyone to answer the question "Is there a Creator." It really comes down to choice, a choice of belief. Do you choose, based on the preponderence of the evidence as you see and interpret it, to believe that the Creator exists, or that He doesn't exist. That's the question… P.S. Feel free to abridge or elide my response for space considerations."
[Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 2003.07.28] Point of logic. Jumping from "impossible to completely prove" to "So it is impossible for anyone to answer the question" and "it really comes down to… a choice of belief" is non sequitur. It is NOT merely a choice of belief. Matter exists. Scientists concur that matter is ultimately composed of a combination of pure forces (quarks) emanating from a Prime Force, i.e. a Singularity. Stated conversely, that Singularity is responsible for everything physical in the universe, all matter and all laws governing matter. Nor can any intelligent person escape the conclusion that the universe manifests, at every turn, intelligent design; of an intelligence far exceeding our own. Thus we unavoidably encounter a super-intelligent Singularity. The most eminent scientists, including physicists, acknowledge that even though they're uncomfortable with how theologians distort it.
Moreover, it isn't logically defensible to state that "it is impossible for anyone to completely prove that there is or isn't a Creator." At best, you can only state that you don't know of such a proof. In fact, such a proof exists.
Thus I offer the following proof that there is a Singularity-Creator, the well recognized reductio ad absurdum proof (proof by disproof).
To dispute this proof, one must find and prove that the laws governing the universe are, in fact, different from the known laws governing the universe (a daunting task indeed) AND provide an alternative explanation for its existence not requiring a Singularity-Creator. The weight of evidence – all laws of physics governing the universe – bear this out. Ergo, and this is critical, the burden of proof is to prove the contrary. The fact is that the only disputations come in the form of "Well, maybe…", or "Possibly,…" or "Here's another theory…"
So, in fact, those who ASSUME there is no Creator, contrary to all evidence (every atom and quark that exists in the universe) and proof, are the ones who are blind ignorant.
This proof also demonstrates that the argument to ignore all of the evidence in the universe that witness a Singularity-Creator is argument ad ignorantiam, the appeal to ignorance and evasion of the burden of proof. The onus is upon whomever would argue to dismiss all of the known laws of the universe and its implications to prove their case, not for those whose views are in harmony with all of the known laws of the universe and its implications to prove the argument ad ignorantiam wrong. Ad ignorantiam is wrong prima facie, by definition as a well-recognized logical fallacy.
 |
|
 |