Back in July, I was IMing a cousin of mine, a Christian. We got into a classic Atheism-versus-Christianity debate. One of the things we were talking about was evolution. She asked where monkeys came from; I said from more primitive beings. It worked backwards all the way to the nebula that science says made our solar system. Eventually, she asked me how the Earth could've existed before the universe. I'll show ya the convo from here, with her messages in italics:
Her: how did the earth get here with this nebula, if it was before the universe? and...i'm not trying to prove it any different
Me: It wasn't before the universe
Me: Science currently believes that the universe is about 15 billion years old, and that the earth is only 4.5 billion
Her: what is the defintion of universe?
Her: i looked it up
Her: do you know what it says?
Me: I could probably infer
Me: The universe is the entirety of space
Her: well this is what it says All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
The human race.
The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
Me: sounds about right
Here, she starts to reveal her point, which I have made bold:
Her: now, if what you're saying is true, about the earth not being before the universe, you're wrong because according to dictionary.com, the earth is part of the universe, in other words, i still have the question, "how did the earth get here with this nebula, before the universe?", because you wanted to know how anything could exist before the universe
Me: the earth didn't exist before the universe
Me: It formed by itself within the nebula
Her: duh
Her: but you said earlier that "It wasn't before the universe"
Me: and the nebula was a collection of leftovers from supernovas
Her: which is right,
Me: there was a universe before earth
Me: The universe didn't form out of a nebula
Her: earth is in the definition of universe,
Her: and humans are in the same definition
Her: so how could there be a universe before the earth
Me: Earth is a PIECE of the universe
Me: cut out the Earth, the universe is still there
Me: it just doesn't have Earth
Me: Just because the dictionary includes Earth in the definition doesn't mean that the universe isn't a universe without Earth
Her: universe: "The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things." (one definition)
Her: the dictionary defines alot, are you saying that its not true?
From what I understand, she's saying that since the Earth and humans are included in the definition of "universe", this proves that the universe isn't a universe
without Earth and humans. She's using the dictionary to defend God, in a sense.
Herein lies the topic of this thread.
I believe that her logic is flawed. But to be honest, I had a tough time figuring out how to show this. I still have a tough time whenever I think about it. It's really been bugging me.
I'd like some feedback here. Specifically, I'd like to know how I can show that her logic is flawed. If it helps, I'll show the rest of the convo, where I attempt a rebuttal:
Me: A chicken is a bird, right?
Her: yes
Me: I found the definition of "bird"
Me: Aves, or birds, have a complete double circulation, oviparous, reproduction, front limbs peculiarly modified as wings; and they bear feathers. All existing birds have a horny beak, without teeth; but some Mesozoic fossil birds (Odontornithes) had conical teeth inserted in both jaws.
Me: If you pluck all the feathers off a chicken, is it still a bird?
Her: yes
Me: the way you think about it, it's not
Her: how?
Me: The definition includes feathers
Me: It's all one definitions
Her: it says they bear feathers, even if it has no wings it can still bear feathers
Me: definition*
Me: Well, if you amputate its horny beak then, is it a bird
Her: yes, and it is a bird because at one point and time it had a beak, but if you amputate it then that's really sad
Me: there was a time it didn't have a beak
Her: yeah, probably, but was there a dictionary then or even someone who cared what it was, or what it had
Her: ?
Me: no, I mean there was a time that particular chicken didn't have a beak
Her: like?
Me: when it was in the egg
Her: if its in the egg, then its not a chicken, its an egg
Me: What's inside it?
Here, we just start going off about chickens and chicks
:
Her: a baby chick, not fully a chicken, meaning that it doesn't have the characteristics of a chicken yet
Me: a chick is a young chicken
Her: that's what i said
Me: "young chicken" is one definition
Her: young
Her: main word
Me: chicken
Here, I launch another rebuttal:
Me: so a baby human isn't a human?
Her: is a human
Her: just not fully developed
Her: like a baby chick
Me: a baby human is to an adult human as a baby chick is to an adult chicken
Her: yeah
Me: so a chick is a chicken
Her: a chick is a baby chicken
Me: and therefore still a chicken
Her: not quite a chicken, just like a calf is not quite a cow
Me: a baby is not quite a human
Her: yeah
Me: wait, what?
Her: gotcha
Her: a baby is not quite a full grown human
Me: so a baby is a human?
Her: depends
Her: a baby chick is not human
Me: a baby human is human
Her: yes
Her: just not an adult human
Me: so a human is an adult human?
Her: that's what i was trying to say
Her: no
Me: the way you explain all this, I'm getting that the status of "human" is assigned to the oldest stage of human developement
Her: no
At this point, she had to go.
As I've said before, I'd like some feedback as to how her logic is flawed. In addition, are my rebuttals flawed? Could I have done much better?
Thanks in advance!
— Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all! Âðelwulf.
