fallacy analysis needed "faulty" Big bang article

[caspernl]

Hello fellow Christians,
This is going to be quite lengthy one but pleas bear with me

Iḿ doing an inquiry of the big bang in my free time and i have been reading allot of articles on it.
I also have been studying a little bit on logic and philosophy.
For instance i have learned about things like:"straw man" circular reasoning and "argumentum ad hominem".
I am very new to these terms but the different ways some reasoning can be considered as fallacy's helped me allot so far.

Now for my problem, i have been reading this article on a creationist website about common misunderstandings on the big bang, and i suspect that in this article there is allot of faulty reasoning.
I have been analysing it myself and i suspect some things but i want to make an appeal to some more seasoned reasoners and logicians here.

Here is a link to the article:
(I cant post links this is great,iḿ going to be creative because this is important)
https://
answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/misconceptions-of-general-relativity-cosmology-and-the-big-bang/


In this article under the subtitle "The big bang does not prove God's existence" he says the following

If A causes B, then B must occur after A does, for no effect can precede its cause. It is also doubtful that an effect and its cause can occur simultaneously. The approach of the Christian apologist is to argue that if B is the big bang, then the only cause, A, available is God, because nothing physical can precede the big bang. But this reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the big-bang model, or causality, or both. Smith makes this point in his discussion of the equations that give rise to the big bang. These equations relate physical qualities (space and time) of the universe. It is very clear that these equations suggest (or demand?) that time did not exist before the big bang. To ask a question such as “what was here before the big bang?” makes no sense, as discussed in an earlier section in this chapter. Time began with the big bang, and the big bang was the first event in time

I was confused by this because in debates i was doing exactly what he is saying here is "a fundamental lack of understanding", since i was using causation to state that some bigger "cause" must exist outside creation or the big bang.
I’m sure some of you ( i hope ) are familiar with Kalams cosmological argument. And far as i know this argument is based upon the idea that something cannot come out of nothing.

In this little quoted text im suspecting he is making a self defeating argument, but first some points i got out of this text:

1.The space time continuum is the only realm where cause and effect work in.

2. Something can only be caused within this realm of space time, it is senseless to go outside it.

3. The space time continuum was caused by the big bang.
4.The big bang was the first event in space time.

Is it not true then that by this argument the big bang can only occur after the big bang?
Because how can the big bang create time and be the first event in time.
As far as i know the big bang MUST lay outside what it created.

A bit further he makes this remark:

Apologists generally attempt to sidestep this difficulty a couple of different ways. One way is to suggest that there is some extra-dimensional causality principle that works beyond our universe of which our causality principle bound by time is only a part. This is an appeal to a hypothetical principle that cannot be demonstrated, and hardly constitutes a good proof.

This really annoyed me because his reasoning as far as i think is circular and thus is faulty, to fix this you MUST lay the big bang outside its creation but he refutes this as being something "hypothetical".
As far as i know the whole big bang and singularity are "hypothetical" and cannot be proven but that aside i think that this is blaming someone for what you are doing yourself.

Now then.......
Is there anyone that can help me with this mess of an argument!!?!?!?!
Is he stating that something came out of nothing? or that something created itself? Is it not also true that ha makes a straw man out of the cosmological argument by stating it needs time to work???
Am i right in thinking that there is something fishy going on here?

He is making more points in this article so it might be smart to read atleast the whole part of "The big bang does not prove God's existence" to get a perfect view of what he is saying.

I'm interested in condensing this faulty reasoning by known fallacy’s (straw man etc). And i'm also very interested in your own analysis of this article.
Pleas brother philosophers i need your help.

A last point to note is that there is more that i want to get to in this whole article but lets just start here.

Thanks very much for reading and thanks in advance for answering!

 

[True Scotsman]

Hello fellow Christians,
This is going to be quite lengthy one but pleas bear with me

Iḿ doing an inquiry of the big bang in my free time and i have been reading allot of articles on it.
I also have been studying a little bit on logic and philosophy.
For instance i have learned about things like:"straw man" circular reasoning and "argumentum ad hominem".
I am very new to these terms but the different ways some reasoning can be considered as fallacy's helped me allot so far.

Now for my problem, i have been reading this article on a creationist website about common misunderstandings on the big bang, and i suspect that in this article there is allot of faulty reasoning.
I have been analysing it myself and i suspect some things but i want to make an appeal to some more seasoned reasoners and logicians here.

Here is a link to the article:
(I cant post links this is great,iḿ going to be creative because this is important)
https://
answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/misconceptions-of-general-relativity-cosmology-and-the-big-bang/


In this article under the subtitle "The big bang does not prove God's existence" he says the following


I was confused by this because in debates i was doing exactly what he is saying here is "a fundamental lack of understanding", since i was using causation to state that some bigger "cause" must exist outside creation or the big bang.
I’m sure some of you ( i hope ) are familiar with Kalams cosmological argument. And far as i know this argument is based upon the idea that something cannot come out of nothing.

In this little quoted text im suspecting he is making a self defeating argument, but first some points i got out of this text:

1.The space time continuum is the only realm where cause and effect work in.

2. Something can only be caused within this realm of space time, it is senseless to go outside it.

3. The space time continuum was caused by the big bang.
4.The big bang was the first event in space time.

Is it not true then that by this argument the big bang can only occur after the big bang?
Because how can the big bang create time and be the first event in time.
As far as i know the big bang MUST lay outside what it created.

A bit further he makes this remark:


This really annoyed me because his reasoning as far as i think is circular and thus is faulty, to fix this you MUST lay the big bang outside its creation but he refutes this as being something "hypothetical".
As far as i know the whole big bang and singularity are "hypothetical" and cannot be proven but that aside i think that this is blaming someone for what you are doing yourself.

Now then.......
Is there anyone that can help me with this mess of an argument!!?!?!?!
Is he stating that something came out of nothing? or that something created itself? Is it not also true that ha makes a straw man out of the cosmological argument by stating it needs time to work???
Am i right in thinking that there is something fishy going on here?

He is making more points in this article so it might be smart to read atleast the whole part of "The big bang does not prove God's existence" to get a perfect view of what he is saying.

I'm interested in condensing this faulty reasoning by known fallacy’s (straw man etc). And i'm also very interested in your own analysis of this article.
Pleas brother philosophers i need your help.

A last point to note is that there is more that i want to get to in this whole article but lets just start here.

Thanks very much for reading and thanks in advance for answering!

Beside the fact that they are misrepresenting the Big Bang theory, there is major fallacy that their argument is committing and that all arguments for a god commit. It's called the fallacy of pure self-reference. They commit this fallacy by proposing a consciousness that created everything distinct from itself. This would lead logically to a consciousness with neither means of awareness nor objects to be aware of. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction. Consciousness is awareness of an object. If there are no objects then no consciousness. Consciousness cannot logically be the starting point because it is dependent on existence in two ways: a means of awareness (sense organs and a brain) and something which exists to be conscious of other than itself.

Probably not the answer you want but true none the less. Existence exists and is an absolute. Therefore it can neither come into or go out of existence and this is fully compatible with the Big Bang theory which does not say that nothing physical existed before the Big Bang. Energy existed before the Big Bang and energy is physical, it has mass.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[caspernl]

Beside the fact that they are misrepresenting the Big Bang theory, there is major fallacy that their argument is committing and that all arguments for a god commit. It's called the fallacy of pure self-reference. They commit this fallacy by proposing a consciousness that created everything distinct from itself. This would lead logically to a consciousness with neither means of awareness nor objects to be aware of. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction. Consciousness is awareness of an object. If there are no objects then no consciousness. Consciousness cannot logically be the starting point because it is dependent on existence in two ways: a means of awareness (sense organs and a brain) and something which exists to be conscious of other than itself.

Probably not the answer you want but true none the less. Existence exists and is an absolute. Therefore it can neither come into or go out of existence and this is fully compatible with the Big Bang theory which does not say that nothing physical existed before the Big Bang. Energy existed before the Big Bang and energy is physical, it has mass.

I am happy you also see the mistake here, but i do not think you can rightly make the argument then that every argument for god makes the same mistake. A God or creator would lie outside his own creation. So His awareness can be completely different from the awareness one has within his creation.The created world is one frame, and God the creator is in a different frame. The same as the multiverse theory. the rules of one frame do not necessary apply to the other. I would agree that this cant be proven but as far as i know its not a logical fallacy to state this.

Also i think you are describing physicalism, but this has no exact bearing on "Existence exists and is an absolute" you need to rephrase that to: "physical existence exists and is an absolute" which i disagree with.
The strange thing is that "existence exists" is self referencing as far as i can see. Is this then also a fallacy in your eyes? What i'm trying to say here is that something cant be making a self reference fallacy if you look at it from two frames of existence (one created, one not created).

 

[Chesterton]

Beside the fact that they are misrepresenting the Big Bang theory, there is major fallacy that their argument is committing and that all arguments for a god commit. It's called the fallacy of pure self-reference. They commit this fallacy by proposing a consciousness that created everything distinct from itself. This would lead logically to a consciousness with neither means of awareness nor objects to be aware of. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction. Consciousness is awareness of an object. If there are no objects then no consciousness. Consciousness cannot logically be the starting point because it is dependent on existence in two ways: a means of awareness (sense organs and a brain) and something which exists to be conscious of other than itself.

You're laying decent groundwork for the idea of a Triune God.

Probably not the answer you want but true none the less. Existence exists and is an absolute. Therefore it can neither come into or go out of existence and this is fully compatible with the Big Bang theory which does not say that nothing physical existed before the Big Bang. Energy existed before the Big Bang and energy is physical, it has mass.

Citation needed for "energy existed before the Big Bang".

 

[lesliedellow]

I would say that he is making a lot of undemonstrable metaphysical assumptions. For example, time in this universe by definition came into existence when this universe did. But that fact does not justify anybody in making sweeping metaphysical assertions about the existence and/or nature of anything which may, or may not, lie beyond this universe.

Probably it is a question science will never be able to answer, and any answer religion gives must be based upon the experience of a faith community.

 

[True Scotsman]

Caspernl,

You wrote: I am happy you also see the mistake here, but i do not think you can rightly make the argument then that every argument for god makes the same mistake. A God or creator would lie outside his own creation. So His awareness can be completely different from the awareness one has within his creation.The created world is one frame, and God the creator is in a different frame. The same as the multiverse theory. the rules of one frame do not necessary apply to the other. I would agree that this cant be proven but as far as i know its not a logical fallacy to state this.

I do not say that all arguments for gods commit the straw man fallacy. I do say that they all commit the fallacy of pure self-reference. As far as the rest of this it is simply arbitrary and not admissible as evidence or argumentation.

You wrote: Also i think you are describing physicalism, but this has no exact bearing on "Existence exists and is an absolute" you need to rephrase that to: "physical existence exists and is an absolute" which i disagree with.
The strange thing is that "existence exists" is self referencing as far as i can see. Is this then also a fallacy in your eyes? What i'm trying to say here is that something cant be making a self reference fallacy if you look at it from two frames of existence (one created, one not created).

Actually I don't need to rephrase anything. I did not speak of "physicalism". I was simply responding to what you quoted from the article. The Bib Bang theory does not say that there was nothing physical before the Universe expanded. It says that the Universe expanded from a hot dense singularity. Now the newer loop quantum gravity theory says it was a plank star.

The concept "existence" does not commit the fallacy of pure self-reference. The concept "existence" has as its referents everything that exists so no it does not refer only to its own referring. Again these frames of reference of the created and the non-created are arbitrary. When you have some objective evidence for them I'll consider it.

 

[True Scotsman]

Chesterton,

I had written: Beside the fact that they are misrepresenting the Big Bang theory, there is major fallacy that their argument is committing and that all arguments for a god commit. It's called the fallacy of pure self-reference. They commit this fallacy by proposing a consciousness that created everything distinct from itself. This would lead logically to a consciousness with neither means of awareness nor objects to be aware of. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction. Consciousness is awareness of an object. If there are no objects then no consciousness. Consciousness cannot logically be the starting point because it is dependent on existence in two ways: a means of awareness (sense organs and a brain) and something which exists to be conscious of other than itself.

You responded: You're laying decent groundwork for the idea of a Triune God.

Actually I'm not. Multiplying the number of consciousnesses with no means and no content and no objects just compounds the problem and doesn't do anything to resolve the fallacy of pure self-reference. Consciousness is an action. It is the action of being aware of an object. Until this action takes place there is nothing to perceive, just as you can not perceive fishing unless someone fishes or dancing until someone dances. A consciousness with no means, no content and no objects is literally nothing.

Consciousness can be an object but only secondarily, in the act of perceiving an object.

I had written: Probably not the answer you want but true none the less. Existence exists and is an absolute. Therefore it can neither come into or go out of existence and this is fully compatible with the Big Bang theory which does not say that nothing physical existed before the Big Bang. Energy existed before the Big Bang and energy is physical, it has mass.

You responded: Citation needed for "energy existed before the Big Bang".

Actually I'd like to see a citation where the Big Bang theory says that there was nothing physical until the Universe expanded. This is the claim that needs substantiation. Everything I've read says that the Universe expanded from a singularity or hot dense ball of energy. So there was something physical there that expanded.

Of course philosophy has nothing to say about the origin or cause of the big bang, it only tells us that whatever caused it, it existed. The only other option is that something non-existent caused it.

 

[caspernl]

Caspernl,

You wrote: I am happy you also see the mistake here, but i do not think you can rightly make the argument then that every argument for god makes the same mistake. A God or creator would lie outside his own creation. So His awareness can be completely different from the awareness one has within his creation.The created world is one frame, and God the creator is in a different frame. The same as the multiverse theory. the rules of one frame do not necessary apply to the other. I would agree that this cant be proven but as far as i know its not a logical fallacy to state this.

I do not say that all arguments for gods commit the straw man fallacy. I do say that they all commit the fallacy of pure self-reference. As far as the rest of this it is simply arbitrary and not admissible as evidence or argumentation.

You wrote: Also i think you are describing physicalism, but this has no exact bearing on "Existence exists and is an absolute" you need to rephrase that to: "physical existence exists and is an absolute" which i disagree with.
The strange thing is that "existence exists" is self referencing as far as i can see. Is this then also a fallacy in your eyes? What i'm trying to say here is that something cant be making a self reference fallacy if you look at it from two frames of existence (one created, one not created).

Actually I don't need to rephrase anything. I did not speak of "physicalism". I was simply responding to what you quoted from the article. The Bib Bang theory does not say that there was nothing physical before the Universe expanded. It says that the Universe expanded from a hot dense singularity. Now the newer loop quantum gravity theory says it was a plank star.

The concept "existence" does not commit the fallacy of pure self-reference. The concept "existence" has as its referents everything that exists so no it does not refer only to its own referring. Again these frames of reference of the created and the non-created are arbitrary. When you have some objective evidence for them I'll consider it.

You are not just responding to my article since you started stating that every argument for god is making a surten falacy. Which then i disagreed with.Saying my response to that is unwaranted is unfair.

I also am not saying "existence" does commit the fallacy of pure self-reference. I am saying "existence exists" is commiting "the "fallacy of pure self-reference".These are two different things.

And btw reference frames are not arbitrary, theyre reference frames.
And they are necesery to determine the possibility of a "falacy of pure self reference". i condensed the reference frames out of the article, so they are based on the article.The reference frames i use are arbitrary but yours are oke to use?This again is unfair either you say reference frames are arbitrary or there not.
If you say theyre arbitrary then you cant use the fallacy of pure self reference.


(forgive my bad grammar i dont have grammar check at work,and i'm not english).


All this aside i want to discuss about the first post, not your view on how the existence of god is commiting a fallacy.

 

[True Scotsman]

You are not just responding to my article since you started stating that every argument for god is making a surten falacy. Which then i disagreed with.Saying my response to that is unwaranted is unfair.

I also am not saying "existence" does commit the fallacy of pure self-reference. I am saying "existence exists" is commiting "the "fallacy of pure self-reference".These are two different things.

And btw reference frames are not arbitrary, theyre reference frames.
And they are necesery to determine the possibility of a "falacy of pure self reference". i condensed the reference frames out of the article, so they are based on the article.The reference frames i use are arbitrary but yours are oke to use?This again is unfair either you say reference frames are arbitrary or there not.
If you say theyre arbitrary then you cant use the fallacy of pure self reference.


(forgive my bad grammar i dont have grammar check at work,and i'm not english).


All this aside i want to discuss about the first post, not your view on how the existence of god is commiting a fallacy.

Existence exists is simply an affirmation of the fact that things exist. It doesn't commit the fallacy of Pure self reference. But you're right, I threw that in there and it really had nothing to do with the OP.

So lets consider the article. I didn't read the whole thing because just the little excerpt you quoted was a straw man argument. It misrepresents the Big Bang theory. Therefore there is really no reason to read further. What does it say about their position that they can't argue against the Big Bang theory without misrepresenting it?

 

[Linehogs]

Hello fellow Christians,
This is going to be quite lengthy one but pleas bear with me

Iḿ doing an inquiry of the big bang in my free time and i have been reading allot of articles on it.
I also have been studying a little bit on logic and philosophy.
For instance i have learned about things like:"straw man" circular reasoning and "argumentum ad hominem".
I am very new to these terms but the different ways some reasoning can be considered as fallacy's helped me allot so far.
!

The link to your article doesn't work. So I can't comment on many of the problems.

However.... here is your general problem. The Scientific Method deals only in what can be tested. There is a difference in Physics... and physics theory. Much of the theorists approach is a mathematical construct. And over time.... it can be tested with appropriate technology. When we built the Haldron Collider we were able to test some of the theory and found it to be accurate. However with every test.... there is one answer... and 50 more questions lol.

When dealing with the Big Bang.... you have to determine which approach you want. Are you approaching it with the Scientific Method? If so.... you cannot approach the concept of god. In order to do so... you need to construct and define god in physical parameters. This is not possible. God is an eternal entity. Human Beings can spend now... until eternity... trying to map god... and never even get through step one. Therefore it's a waste of time. Instead... you can examine god's creation through science. That's about as far as science can take you. Which is fine. Science is wonderful. I love examining god's creation. But I view it as separate and noncompetitive with faith. I see no reason to dilute either by crossing them. The nature of faith does not co-exist with the nature of science. They are incompatible. The minute you try to prove faith through science... you have abandoned the scientific method. Meaning your results are likely flawed. Think of it this way.... Man tries to prove god's existence through the physical evidence in creation. Man forms a hypothesis on this basis. But he is incapable of independently observing the results. First... he must continue to hypothesize results all the way up to explaining WHAT god is.... which is impossible. If god came before the universe... as we believe... then how could someone living within the universe and using it's laws ie physics to determine something which may not exist in the same dimension? There is simply too much to it. And the eventual roadblock is the fact that whatever plane or dimension god exists in... or if he IS the dimension itself... it may not adhere to the laws of THIS dimension. A simply analogy is.... birth and death. Everything we know is born... and dies. This is due to the passing of time which we know to be a legitimate law demonstrated by Albert Einstein. Yet god is eternal. Therefore he exists beyond the space time continuum. Therefore our laws do not apply.

The second way you can approach the big bang... is through faith. You are doing exactly what I said is impossible above. You scrap the scientific theory. And you try to make all things in THIS universe apply via your own faith. From a scientific perspective... you are wasting your time. However from a philosophical perspective... you could stumble on some new and interesting ideas.

Personally... I do not care. My faith is demonstrated and come from god. I know there is a god and I know he loves me.... the same way I know I love music. You can argue with many things in the world. You can argue the sky is blue. And one can argue that it is not. Both can support evidence to make their case. But you cannot argue the fact that I love music. Because it is an individual perspective. Therefore... applying the same rationality to god...I believe in god. I believe he is good. I believe his hands are on my life. And I am grateful for it. I have witnessed god's goodness in many ways etc etc. Those are completely individual statements regarding perspective. You can argue why YOU don't believe in such things. But you will never be able to argue why I don't given that I have already stated otherwise. That is the nature of faith. When I look at the "Big Bang"...... my first thought is.... And then there was light... and god saw that it was good. From everything we know about the Big Bang.... that's essentially all there was in the beginning. There was no matter etc. It was pure energy.

(Another interesting concept is where the bible says "God stretches the universe like a curtain." Given Hubble's discovery that not only is the universe expanding... but galaxies twice as far away are moving twice as fast... and galaxies three times as far away are moving three times as fast.... It's an interesting tidbit. If god stretches the universe like a curtain... and you were sitting on the center fold.... then it would have the same effect. Folds twice as far away would appear to move twice as fast. And folds three times as far away would appear to move three times as fast from your perspective. It doesn't apply to your situation.... but it is interesting.

We also know that in the end... the Earth will be scorched with fire. This could be the result of the sun expanding. Or it could be the result of another force. But Jesus said.... a World without End Amen. This is interesting. Both are in the new Testament. And thy are seemingly contradictory. However Jesus often spoke in parables. And I believe.... it lends credence to the idea of a universe that repeats itself. Which is a current and much debated physics theory.)

 

[caspernl]

Existence exists is simply an affirmation of the fact that things exist. It doesn't commit the fallacy of Pure self reference. But you're right, I threw that in there and it really had nothing to do with the OP.

So lets consider the article. I didn't read the whole thing because just the little excerpt you quoted was a straw man argument. It misrepresents the Big Bang theory. Therefore there is really no reason to read further. What does it say about their position that they can't argue against the Big Bang theory without misrepresenting it?

You’re right about that,and that reminds me of the quote's someone posted a little earlyer.But i am just wondering if this article is using circular reasoning.
You call it the fallacy of pure self reference but I’m confused of the definition of this so called fallacy.Circular reasoning seems like a solid fallacy.

So ill indulge in your statements again because honestly i'm not seeing a solid definition of this "self referencing fallacy".

Beside the fact that they are misrepresenting the Big Bang theory, there is major fallacy that their argument is committing and that all arguments for a god commit

After this i posted an argument "for a god" that didn’t self reference.
Thereby proving your statement and specific the "all" in "all arguments for a god" wrong.
After this you say my argument is hypothetical, but what does this have to do with anything? I already said when i made the argument that it was hypothetical. It doesn't change the fact that this is an argument.Proof for or against the argument that I'm making makes my argument valid or invalid.But it doesn’t make it fallacious. Is this not true?

What if i stated that "all arguments for monkeys commit the "monkey's are red fallacy"". Then you make the argument for monkeys being blue.
Beside the fact that monkeys are neither red nor blue this does falsify the first statement about "all arguments for monkeys" doesn’t it?

Existence exists is simply an affirmation of the fact that things exist. It doesn't commit the fallacy of Pure self reference. But you're right, I threw that in there and it really had nothing to do with the OP.

Is it not true that to prove things exist you have to refer to existence, thus making the proof based on self reference.
I am not saying "existence exists" is a fallacy I’m just trying to state that self reference per-Se is not a fallacy.

I think we are on the same page, I’m sure you heard of "creatio ex-nihilo" or whatever, i don’t believe in this and i don’t believe from my interpretation of the bible that it is a biblical position.
Again i'm just saying that how unproven Gods existence might be, an argument for his existence is not always making a self referencing fallacy.

 

[True Scotsman]

You’re right about that,and that reminds me of the quote's someone posted a little earlyer.But i am just wondering if this article is using circular reasoning.
You call it the fallacy of pure self reference but I’m confused of the definition of this so called fallacy.Circular reasoning seems like a solid fallacy.

So ill indulge in your statements again because honestly i'm not seeing a solid definition of this "self referencing fallacy".

Actually, it's the concept they are arguing for that commits the fallacy of pure self-reference. An example of a statement that is purely self referent would be something like this:

This statement is true.


This statement refers only to its own referring. It says nothing. In the same way, the concept of a consciousness without means, objects or contents and conscious only of itself denotes nothing. I pointed out this fallacy by way of explaining why they(the creationists) must use these types of fallacious arguments which rely on circular reasoning and straw men and appeals to ignorance because the thing they are trying to prove is an invalid concept, a contradiction.

After this i posted an argument "for a god" that didn’t self reference.
Thereby proving your statement and specific the "all" in "all arguments for a god" wrong.
After this you say my argument is hypothetical, but what does this have to do with anything? I already said when i made the argument that it was hypothetical. It doesn't change the fact that this is an argument.Proof for or against the argument that I'm making makes my argument valid or invalid.But it doesn’t make it fallacious. Is this not true?

What if i stated that "all arguments for monkeys commit the "monkey's are red fallacy"". Then you make the argument for monkeys being blue.
Beside the fact that monkeys are neither red nor blue this does falsify the first statement about "all arguments for monkeys" doesn’t it?



Is it not true that to prove things exist you have to refer to existence, thus making the proof based on self reference.
I am not saying "existence exists" is a fallacy I’m just trying to state that self reference per-Se is not a fallacy.

I think we are on the same page, I’m sure you heard of "creatio ex-nihilo" or whatever, i don’t believe in this and i don’t believe from my interpretation of the bible that it is a biblical position.
Again i'm just saying that how unproven Gods existence might be, an argument for his existence is not always making a self referencing fallacy.

What you presented was not an argument. It was just a bunch of arbitrary speculations. Again, it's the concept being argued for that is fallacious. It is a contradiction. contradictions can't exist.

 

[caspernl]

Actually, it's the concept they are arguing for that commits the fallacy of pure self-reference. An example of a statement that is purely self referent would be something like this:

This statement is true.


This statement refers only to its own referring. It says nothing. In the same way, the concept of a consciousness without means, objects or contents and conscious only of itself denotes nothing. I pointed out this fallacy by way of explaining why they(the creationists) must use these types of fallacious arguments which rely on circular reasoning and straw men and appeals to ignorance because the thing they are trying to prove is an invalid concept, a contradiction.





What you presented was not an argument. It was just a bunch of arbitrary speculations. Again, it's the concept being argued for that is fallacious. It is a contradiction. contradictions can't exist.

Ok ofcourse you can denie it is an argument, and call it a contradiction. But this is simply not true.You statement that energy exists before the big bang is also an arbitrary speculation by thatdefinition but that doesnt matter.Calling it this avoids the point i was making so i guess thats your only way out.

Youre whole argument on conciousness is also arbitrary and not proven, so you can't make the fallacy argument.

Consciousness is awareness of an object

This is arbitrary.

If there are no objects then no consciousness

This is arbitrary.

Consciousness cannot logically be the starting point because it is dependent on existence in two ways: a means of awareness (sense organs and a brain) and something which exists to be conscious of other than itself.

This is arbitrary.

Calling this true and the other side of it arbitrary and not worth considering is making a one sided argument. fully biased to your side.
Arguing like this is useless.

 

[True Scotsman]

Ok ofcourse you can denie it is an argument, and call it a contradiction. But this is simply not true.You statement that energy exists before the big bang is also an arbitrary speculation by thatdefinition but that doesnt matter.Calling it this avoids the point i was making so i guess thats your only way out.

Youre whole argument on conciousness is also arbitrary and not proven, so you can't make the fallacy argument.

This is arbitrary.
This is arbitrary.
This is arbitrary.

Calling this true and the other side of it arbitrary and not worth considering is making a one sided argument. fully biased to your side.
Arguing like this is useless.

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how a consciousness can exist without means, content or objects. How is such a concept not a contradiction. Simply asserting that it is not a contradiction doesn't suffice.

 

[caspernl]

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how a consciousness can exist without means, content or objects. How is such a concept not a contradiction. Simply asserting that it is not a contradiction doesn't suffice.

Why? so you can say it is arbitrary again?
Per definiton everything about consciousness is arbitrary because it is metaphisical.
Every counter i made like in my last post is ignored. You can counter with arbitrary arguments but i cant.

You know what, show me some proof of your arbitrary argument of consciousness and i'll think about countering you.
Since you made the argument that every argument for god makes a fallacy any ways.
I showed you that this argument is based on arbitrary statements on consciousness.
THUS you now have to prove there not arbitrary or restate your argument.
The burden of proof is on you (the plaintiff) not on me i'm not making the original argument.

Its like me calling guinness book of world records and saying hey i just walked 500 meters in 1 second.
They then say ok show me some proof, i then say no you show me proof i didnt do this.
Its ridiculous, its an argument from ignorance.

 

[True Scotsman]

Why? so you can say it is arbitrary again?
Per definiton everything about consciousness is arbitrary because it is metaphisical.
Every counter i made like in my last post is ignored. You can counter with arbitrary arguments but i cant.

You know what, show me some proof of your arbitrary argument of consciousness and i'll think about countering you.
Since you made the argument that every argument for god makes a fallacy any ways.
I showed you that this argument is based on arbitrary statements on consciousness.
THUS you now have to prove there not arbitrary or restate your argument.
The burden of proof is on you (the plaintiff) not on me i'm not making the original argument.

Its like me calling guinness book of world records and saying hey i just walked 500 meters in 1 second.
They then say ok show me some proof, i then say no you show me proof i didnt do this.
Its ridiculous, its an argument from ignorance.

I will call it arbitrary if its arbitrary but first you need to present it. I'll explain later tonight why my concept of consciousness is not arbitrary and why the concept of "proof" presupposes it. Until then I'll just say for starters that it is not arbitrary because it is perceptually self evident. But I'll explain in detail after I finish working.

 

[caspernl]

I will call it arbitrary if its arbitrary but first you need to present it. I'll explain later tonight why my concept of consciousness is not arbitrary and why the concept of "proof" presupposes it. Until then I'll just say for starters that it is not arbitrary because it is perceptually self evident. But I'll explain in detail after I finish working.

Ok i will wait for that . The things i pointed out in your first argument about concsiousness that i called arbitrary i truly think are just that. Presupposing a brain to have consciousness is arbitrary because you dont have proof that mental states are brain states. This brings us to mind body dualism etc which is quite a topic.
I think consciousness is not even definable in a sufficient way,

 

[Davian]

 

[True Scotsman]

Why? so you can say it is arbitrary again?
Per definiton everything about consciousness is arbitrary because it is metaphisical.
Every counter i made like in my last post is ignored. You can counter with arbitrary arguments but i cant.

I don't think you understand what the word "arbitrary" means. It means unsupported by any objective evidence. The fact that consciousness is consciousness of something (an object) as opposed to consciousness of nothing (no object) is perceptually self evident so it can not be arbitrary. it is directly observable. In all cases whatever you perceive is something and not nothing. In all cases consciousness is an action of living organisms with some kind of sense organs or ability to sense the world around it. In all cases consciousness is an action, the action of perceiving an object. Actions can be observed and can be the object of a consciousness but not until they happen. You can directly observe your consciousness in the act of being conscious of an object as a secondary object. You can't observe your own consciousness until it actually performs some perceiving. For that it needs at minimum one object to be aware of.

You claim that there is this consciousness somewhere that can exist without means, objects or content. Can you demonstrate that. Can you show me an example that is directly observable? One objective example is all you need to provide. If you can't then your evidence is purely arbitrary.

You know what, show me some proof of your arbitrary argument of consciousness and i'll think about countering you.
Since you made the argument that every argument for god makes a fallacy any ways.
I showed you that this argument is based on arbitrary statements on consciousness.
THUS you now have to prove there not arbitrary or restate your argument.
The burden of proof is on you (the plaintiff) not on me i'm not making the original argument.

I can do that easily. Your question to me is proof. In order to ask it you had to turn it into a concrete form by typing it into the computer. You had to use language. Each word in your question is a symbol for a concept. In order to communicate with me you had to turn your question composed of a string of concepts into an objective form, of a sentence composed of symbols that could be perceived by my eyes (sense organs). This proves that consciousness requires objects.

Its like me calling guinness book of world records and saying hey i just walked 500 meters in 1 second.
They then say ok show me some proof, i then say no you show me proof i didnt do this.
Its ridiculous, its an argument from ignorance.

This is exactly what you are doing with your arbitrary claim that a consciousness can exist without means, objects or content.