About Belief, Religion and God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
521

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Hillbilly Atheist presentation on Atheism

Cute, but unsatisfying. Nothing I haven’t heard like a trillion times…He suffers from the same issues most athiests have, 1) is the problem of evil. 2) is giving up on origin. Saying the universe was always here doesn’t solve the problem of contingency. Light is infinite too, but it originates from sources all around the universe. There is nothing in the universe whose existence isn’t contingent upon something else, period…I said nothing. If you find it, you’ve found God.[/quote]

…the problem of evil is easily solved; there is no inherent evil or good, but merely a justification for behaviour we reject or award. Your other point we’re already dealing with…
[/quote]

If there was no right or wrong then everyone could do whatever they wanted with no consequences. We would have to throw laws out the window becausee nobody can really say that something is wrong. If everything resonates from the inner self, and I enjoy murder then murder is right for me. By using this logic, Hitler was an OK guy. If morals are naturally intrinsic then they have to come from somewhere.

522

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Hillbilly Atheist presentation on Atheism

Cute, but unsatisfying. Nothing I haven’t heard like a trillion times…He suffers from the same issues most athiests have, 1) is the problem of evil. 2) is giving up on origin. Saying the universe was always here doesn’t solve the problem of contingency. Light is infinite too, but it originates from sources all around the universe. There is nothing in the universe whose existence isn’t contingent upon something else, period…I said nothing. If you find it, you’ve found God.[/quote]

…the problem of evil is easily solved; there is no inherent evil or good, but merely a justification for behaviour we reject or award. Your other point we’re already dealing with…
[/quote]

If there was no right or wrong then everyone could do whatever they wanted with no consequences. We would have to throw laws out the window becausee nobody can really say that something is wrong. If everything resonates from the inner self, and I enjoy murder then murder is right for me. By using this logic, Hitler was an OK guy. If morals are naturally intrinsic then they have to come from somewhere.[/quote]

…i’m a little disappointed we have to go here again, but allright:

Option 1. You believe that God created mankind and instilled mankind with a sense of morality. On this innate sense of morality we determin what is right or wrong.

Option 2. You believe mankind is a highly evolved mammal who, just like everything else in nature, is driven by a biological imperative rather than a supernatural one.

…no matter the option, we us humans need to function in a society. This society can only function properly if there are groundrules. This is why there are laws, not because something is right or wrong. If thise was the case, cannabis for instance would be legal…

…if murder is wrong, why do we start wars or other deadly conflicts? If i could steal 10 million dollars and knew i wouldn’t be caught, i’d do it. Why we don’t do things is mostly because of the repercussions, not because there’s an innate sense of right and wrong…

523

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Hillbilly Atheist presentation on Atheism

Cute, but unsatisfying. Nothing I haven’t heard like a trillion times…He suffers from the same issues most athiests have, 1) is the problem of evil. 2) is giving up on origin. Saying the universe was always here doesn’t solve the problem of contingency. Light is infinite too, but it originates from sources all around the universe. There is nothing in the universe whose existence isn’t contingent upon something else, period…I said nothing. If you find it, you’ve found God.[/quote]

…the problem of evil is easily solved; there is no inherent evil or good, but merely a justification for behaviour we reject or award. Your other point we’re already dealing with…
[/quote]

If there was no right or wrong then everyone could do whatever they wanted with no consequences. We would have to throw laws out the window becausee nobody can really say that something is wrong. If everything resonates from the inner self, and I enjoy murder then murder is right for me. By using this logic, Hitler was an OK guy. If morals are naturally intrinsic then they have to come from somewhere.[/quote]

…i’m a little disappointed we have to go here again, but allright:

Option 1. You believe that God created mankind and instilled mankind with a sense of morality. On this innate sense of morality we determin what is right or wrong.

Option 2. You believe mankind is a highly evolved mammal who, just like everything else in nature, is driven by a biological imperative rather than a supernatural one.

…no matter the option, we us humans need to function in a society. This society can only function properly if there are groundrules. This is why there are laws, not because something is right or wrong. If thise was the case, cannabis for instance would be legal…

…if murder is wrong, why do we start wars or other deadly conflicts? If i could steal 10 million dollars and knew i wouldn’t be caught, i’d do it. Why we don’t do things is mostly because of the repercussions, not because there’s an innate sense of right and wrong…
[/quote]

However, there are a number of people that have the inner being known as a conscience that disallows us to do bad things. There has to be right or wrong otherwise not every society would agree with the basic ideas of right and wrong. I would bet dollars to donuts (what ever that means) that every society on earth views the following things wrong:

  1. Murder
  2. Stealing
  3. Lying
  4. Harming others
  5. Adultery

There could be some fringe societies in which these things are accepted, but if 99% of humanity accepts these things as morally wrong you have to say they can’t all get it from an external source.

524

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Hillbilly Atheist presentation on Atheism

Cute, but unsatisfying. Nothing I haven’t heard like a trillion times…He suffers from the same issues most athiests have, 1) is the problem of evil. 2) is giving up on origin. Saying the universe was always here doesn’t solve the problem of contingency. Light is infinite too, but it originates from sources all around the universe. There is nothing in the universe whose existence isn’t contingent upon something else, period…I said nothing. If you find it, you’ve found God.[/quote]

…the problem of evil is easily solved; there is no inherent evil or good, but merely a justification for behaviour we reject or award. Your other point we’re already dealing with…
[/quote]

If there was no right or wrong then everyone could do whatever they wanted with no consequences. We would have to throw laws out the window becausee nobody can really say that something is wrong. If everything resonates from the inner self, and I enjoy murder then murder is right for me. By using this logic, Hitler was an OK guy. If morals are naturally intrinsic then they have to come from somewhere.[/quote]

…i’m a little disappointed we have to go here again, but allright:

Option 1. You believe that God created mankind and instilled mankind with a sense of morality. On this innate sense of morality we determin what is right or wrong.

Option 2. You believe mankind is a highly evolved mammal who, just like everything else in nature, is driven by a biological imperative rather than a supernatural one.

…no matter the option, we us humans need to function in a society. This society can only function properly if there are groundrules. This is why there are laws, not because something is right or wrong. If thise was the case, cannabis for instance would be legal…

…if murder is wrong, why do we start wars or other deadly conflicts? If i could steal 10 million dollars and knew i wouldn’t be caught, i’d do it. Why we don’t do things is mostly because of the repercussions, not because there’s an innate sense of right and wrong…
[/quote]

However, there are a number of people that have the inner being known as a conscience that disallows us to do bad things. There has to be right or wrong otherwise not every society would agree with the basic ideas of right and wrong. I would bet dollars to donuts (what ever that means) that every society on earth views the following things wrong:

  1. Murder
  2. Stealing
  3. Lying
  4. Harming others
  5. Adultery

There could be some fringe societies in which these things are accepted, but if 99% of humanity accepts these things as morally wrong you have to say they can’t all get it from an external source.[/quote]

…when enough people congregate to form a society, this society needs rules. It’s not suprising to me that the general rules that make a society succesful are similar all over the world. I see no evidence of a divine hand in that similarity…

525

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You cannot draw a conclusion from an infinite amount of premises. Secondly, it always lead to circular reasoning. You cannot support a conclusion with itself. Here’s a better explanation.

http://alrenous.blogspot.com/2009/02/proof-of-infinite-regressions-fallacy.html[/quote]

…my reading comprehension skills must be lacking, or you read me wrong. If there is a finite regression, what reason is there to assume the uncaused cause is intelligent?
[/quote]
You can assume what you want. But if you look at what it would take to be an uncaused-cause, to cause and not because implicates something like a “will” to be involved. A will implies consciousness. As for intelligence, I would say that is not applicable as it infer cognitive ability.

[quote]
Let’s assume you can regress infinitly, then there’s no need for a first cause, is there?

Ok, but you can’t. I prefer uncaused-cause…First cause assumes time and time is not a factor other than a beginning premise.[/quote]

…until the LHC shows us the answer, i present to you the Mandelbrot fractal: Mandelbrot set - Wikipedia a way to visualise infinity, which doesn’t add to my point, but it’s cool…

The idea of concept of ‘singularity’ refers to the point where scientific models break down and are no longer applicable. This is point at which quantum mechanics and the theory of general relativity render no answers but infinity or infinity to the power of infinity. This is applicable to black holes and the big bang theory.
It does not sit outside the causal chain. You haven’t sufficiently proven that. Singularity are behavior of the unknown with a fancy name. Just because you don’t know why, doesn’t mean it was with out cause.

I said it and you said that’s not what you were saying. But I’ll tell you now. Nothingness cannot render something. It’s mathematically and logically impossible.

[quote]
I doubt this satisfies you, but what are the implications if there is a first uncaused cause?

Nothing can be said about it. Nothing can be known about it. That is what i meant by “filling in the gaps”. Where do you draw the line? When do you say, “I don’t know”, and start to accept culturally influenced belief structures as [absolute] truth?

The conclusion itself leads to knowledge about it. Think about what an uncaused-cause would have to be. First, it could not be bound by time and is therefore infinite. It cannot be created or destroyed. To initiate a cause and not be caused itself, indicates an act of will, which is a symptom of consciousness. That does not mean necessarily it has consciousness, but the inference can be drawn without a stretch. [/quote]

…by definition we cannot know anything about it, because all we are able to know is bound by the limits of our existence. By your own admission, the uncaused cause must be outside this existence, so don’t confuse conjecture with knowledge…[/quote]

It’s not conjecture. It’s a necessity, An uncaused-cause, by definition, has 2 properties you can know just by what it is called. It cannot be caused and must be able to cause. To cause it to put into action. The uncaused-cause has to be able to put a cause into action to get a resultant effect. How? IT must have “decided” to do so with out prompting.

Now, speaking of general relativity, Einstein discovered the existence of black-holes with pure math. Math is a branch of deductive reasoning. Out of pure reasoning he was able to figure out these things exist, though no prior evidence what so ever was evident to the fact.As a matter of fact there was no other evidence for them until the '70’s …I don’t really see this as different. You can discover new things to exist with the eyes of pure reason.

526

[quote]pat wrote:

You can assume what you want. But if you look at what it would take to be an uncaused-cause, to cause and not because implicates something like a “will” to be involved. A will implies consciousness. As for intelligence, I would say that is not applicable as it infer cognitive ability. [/quote]

…the layout has become messy, so allow me to reply in this fashion. Implied will is merely an assumption too, wouldn’t you agree? Simply because we can’t know anything about the uncaused cause. That makes the discussion about the uncaused cause pretty moot…

[quote]

The idea of concept of ‘singularity’ refers to the point where scientific models break down and are no longer applicable. This is point at which quantum mechanics and the theory of general relativity render no answers but infinity or infinity to the power of infinity. This is applicable to black holes and the big bang theory.
It does not sit outside the causal chain. You haven’t sufficiently proven that. Singularity are behavior of the unknown with a fancy name. Just because you don’t know why, doesn’t mean it was with out cause. [/quote]

…the same definition applies to the uncaused cause: scientific models break down and are no longer applicable. You’re making an arbitrary distinction between the two based on, “we don’t know”…

[quote]

It’s not conjecture. It’s a necessity, An uncaused-cause, by definition, has 2 properties you can know just by what it is called. It cannot be caused and must be able to cause. To cause it to put into action. The uncaused-cause has to be able to put a cause into action to get a resultant effect. How? IT must have “decided” to do so with out prompting.

Now, speaking of general relativity, Einstein discovered the existence of black-holes with pure math. Math is a branch of deductive reasoning. Out of pure reasoning he was able to figure out these things exist, though no prior evidence what so ever was evident to the fact.As a matter of fact there was no other evidence for them until the '70’s …I don’t really see this as different. You can discover new things to exist with the eyes of pure reason. [/quote]

…that’s true, and it’s a good argument were it not for the fact that Einstein made sound mathematical predictions that turned out to be true. We cannot make similar mathematical predictions for something that exists outside of time and space, the only thing you end up with is the infinity symbol. So, that brings us back at square one, doesn’t it? What do we do now?

527

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You can assume what you want. But if you look at what it would take to be an uncaused-cause, to cause and not because implicates something like a “will” to be involved. A will implies consciousness. As for intelligence, I would say that is not applicable as it infer cognitive ability. [/quote]

…the layout has become messy, so allow me to reply in this fashion. Implied will is merely an assumption too, wouldn’t you agree? Simply because we can’t know anything about the uncaused cause. That makes the discussion about the uncaused cause pretty moot…

No, by pure reason we can deduce an uncaused-cause existsâ?¦By definition it must have some properties. Just black holesâ?¦.We donâ??t know what the uncaused-cause is, what itâ??s made of, what is itâ??s nature if it has one, etc. With black holes we know by definition properties they must haveâ?¦.They must have mass, gravity, and cannot be made of atomic particles. What we donâ??t know is everything else.
We can know by reason that they exist and they have some properties, what they are and what they are made of is where the model breaks down. The models do successfully establish existence though.

[quote]

It’s not conjecture. It’s a necessity, An uncaused-cause, by definition, has 2 properties you can know just by what it is called. It cannot be caused and must be able to cause. To cause it to put into action. The uncaused-cause has to be able to put a cause into action to get a resultant effect. How? IT must have “decided” to do so with out prompting.

Now, speaking of general relativity, Einstein discovered the existence of black-holes with pure math. Math is a branch of deductive reasoning. Out of pure reasoning he was able to figure out these things exist, though no prior evidence what so ever was evident to the fact.As a matter of fact there was no other evidence for them until the '70’s …I don’t really see this as different. You can discover new things to exist with the eyes of pure reason. [/quote]

…that’s true, and it’s a good argument were it not for the fact that Einstein made sound mathematical predictions that turned out to be true. We cannot make similar mathematical predictions for something that exists outside of time and space, the only thing you end up with is the infinity symbol. So, that brings us back at square one, doesn’t it? What do we do now?[/quote]

Why canâ??t you understand objects outside of time and space? All metaphysical objects exist outside of time and space, that doesnâ??t mean you canâ??t understand them just because you cannot detect them with your 5 senses.

Square one? No way! Weâ??re way ahead of square oneâ?¦You learn more from the process than the solution. They are not unsolvable problems; they just havenâ??t been solved yet. What is a black hole? Nobody knows. What is God? Nobody knows.

Not knowing is not equivalent to not existing.

528

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Hillbilly Atheist presentation on Atheism

Cute, but unsatisfying. Nothing I haven’t heard like a trillion times…He suffers from the same issues most athiests have, 1) is the problem of evil. 2) is giving up on origin. Saying the universe was always here doesn’t solve the problem of contingency. Light is infinite too, but it originates from sources all around the universe. There is nothing in the universe whose existence isn’t contingent upon something else, period…I said nothing. If you find it, you’ve found God.[/quote]

…the problem of evil is easily solved; there is no inherent evil or good, but merely a justification for behaviour we reject or award. Your other point we’re already dealing with…
[/quote]

If there was no right or wrong then everyone could do whatever they wanted with no consequences. We would have to throw laws out the window becausee nobody can really say that something is wrong. If everything resonates from the inner self, and I enjoy murder then murder is right for me. By using this logic, Hitler was an OK guy. If morals are naturally intrinsic then they have to come from somewhere.[/quote]

…i’m a little disappointed we have to go here again, but allright:

Option 1. You believe that God created mankind and instilled mankind with a sense of morality. On this innate sense of morality we determin what is right or wrong.

Option 2. You believe mankind is a highly evolved mammal who, just like everything else in nature, is driven by a biological imperative rather than a supernatural one.

…no matter the option, we us humans need to function in a society. This society can only function properly if there are groundrules. This is why there are laws, not because something is right or wrong. If thise was the case, cannabis for instance would be legal…

…if murder is wrong, why do we start wars or other deadly conflicts? If i could steal 10 million dollars and knew i wouldn’t be caught, i’d do it. Why we don’t do things is mostly because of the repercussions, not because there’s an innate sense of right and wrong…
[/quote]

However, there are a number of people that have the inner being known as a conscience that disallows us to do bad things. There has to be right or wrong otherwise not every society would agree with the basic ideas of right and wrong. I would bet dollars to donuts (what ever that means) that every society on earth views the following things wrong:

  1. Murder
  2. Stealing
  3. Lying
  4. Harming others
  5. Adultery

There could be some fringe societies in which these things are accepted, but if 99% of humanity accepts these things as morally wrong you have to say they can’t all get it from an external source.[/quote]

…when enough people congregate to form a society, this society needs rules. It’s not suprising to me that the general rules that make a society succesful are similar all over the world. I see no evidence of a divine hand in that similarity… [/quote]

I watched an interesting program on television last night. It dealt with possiblities of life on other planets and life on earth. I can’t recall all the exact numbers they gave for everything, but I can tell you a few. They made a list of factors needed for any form of life on any planet. These included:

Viable light source
Right proximity to light source
Right gravitational pull
Right rotation on axis
Right amounts of oxygen (earth is actually only about 23% oxygen)
Existence in it’s galaxy’s habitable life zone
Must be in a spiral galaxy (scientists have almost 100% agreed on this)
Must have hydrogen based, liquid water
Right temperature

There were others, but it dealt with more complex cosmological principles. One included the cosmological constant which is the rate at which the universe is expanding. It was of course an astronomical number, but if it were off by even the most minute fraction it would throw off the ability for the universe to sustain any types of life. Another put together all the factors and more listed above and calculated that the chance of life in the universe was a number smaller than one in a trillionth. Most cosmologists have stated that they have no doubt that we will never find life elsewhere in the universe even if we could travel anywhere. Finally, they all agreed that the main flaw in any creation of the universe theory is that there is no way of explaining where the universe actually came from and what was the detonation factor for the Big Bang.

Just points to ponder.

529

[quote]pat wrote:

…the same definition applies to the uncaused cause: scientific models break down and are no longer applicable. You’re making an arbitrary distinction between the two based on, “we don’t know”…

No, by pure reason we can deduce an uncaused-cause exists�¢?�¦By definition it must have some properties. Just black holes�¢?�¦.We don�¢??t know what the uncaused-cause is, what it�¢??s made of, what is it�¢??s nature if it has one, etc. With black holes we know by definition properties they must have�¢?�¦.They must have mass, gravity, and cannot be made of atomic particles. What we don�¢??t know is everything else.
We can know by reason that they exist and they have some properties, what they are and what they are made of is where the model breaks down. The models do successfully establish existence though.

It’s not conjecture. It’s a necessity, An uncaused-cause, by definition, has 2 properties you can know just by what it is called. It cannot be caused and must be able to cause. To cause it to put into action. The uncaused-cause has to be able to put a cause into action to get a resultant effect. How? IT must have “decided” to do so with out prompting.

Now, speaking of general relativity, Einstein discovered the existence of black-holes with pure math. Math is a branch of deductive reasoning. Out of pure reasoning he was able to figure out these things exist, though no prior evidence what so ever was evident to the fact.As a matter of fact there was no other evidence for them until the '70’s …I don’t really see this as different. You can discover new things to exist with the eyes of pure reason.

…that’s true, and it’s a good argument were it not for the fact that Einstein made sound mathematical predictions that turned out to be true. We cannot make similar mathematical predictions for something that exists outside of time and space, the only thing you end up with is the infinity symbol. So, that brings us back at square one, doesn’t it? What do we do now?

Why can�¢??t you understand objects outside of time and space? All metaphysical objects exist outside of time and space, that doesn�¢??t mean you can�¢??t understand them just because you cannot detect them with your 5 senses.

Square one? No way! We�¢??re way ahead of square one�¢?�¦You learn more from the process than the solution. They are not unsolvable problems; they just haven�¢??t been solved yet. What is a black hole? Nobody knows. What is God? Nobody knows.

Not knowing is not equivalent to not existing.[/quote]

…what i’ve learned from all of this is that something theoretical must exist and that we can’t know this something because, by definition, it must exist outside of time and space. Eventhough we can’t know anything about it, according to your logic it must have certain properties. Not being able to know this something, or even not being able to ever prove it’s existence, does not mean it can’t actually exist. Am i right so far?

530

[quote]BBriere wrote:

I watched an interesting program on television last night. It dealt with possiblities of life on other planets and life on earth. I can’t recall all the exact numbers they gave for everything, but I can tell you a few. They made a list of factors needed for any form of life on any planet. These included:

Viable light source
Right proximity to light source
Right gravitational pull
Right rotation on axis
Right amounts of oxygen (earth is actually only about 23% oxygen)
Existence in it’s galaxy’s habitable life zone
Must be in a spiral galaxy (scientists have almost 100% agreed on this)
Must have hydrogen based, liquid water
Right temperature

There were others, but it dealt with more complex cosmological principles. One included the cosmological constant which is the rate at which the universe is expanding. It was of course an astronomical number, but if it were off by even the most minute fraction it would throw off the ability for the universe to sustain any types of life. Another put together all the factors and more listed above and calculated that the chance of life in the universe was a number smaller than one in a trillionth. Most cosmologists have stated that they have no doubt that we will never find life elsewhere in the universe even if we could travel anywhere. Finally, they all agreed that the main flaw in any creation of the universe theory is that there is no way of explaining where the universe actually came from and what was the detonation factor for the Big Bang.

Just points to ponder.[/quote]

…we are here because the conditions for life to arise were right. We are not here because the universe’s conditions were made right just for us. That does not stop me from being in awe when i look up at the clear night sky, it’s just that i don’t attribute the awesomeness of the universe to a creator of sorts. That’s all…

531

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

…the same definition applies to the uncaused cause: scientific models break down and are no longer applicable. You’re making an arbitrary distinction between the two based on, “we don’t know”…

No, by pure reason we can deduce an uncaused-cause exists�?�¢?�?�¦By definition it must have some properties. Just black holes�?�¢?�?�¦.We don�?�¢??t know what the uncaused-cause is, what it�?�¢??s made of, what is it�?�¢??s nature if it has one, etc. With black holes we know by definition properties they must have�?�¢?�?�¦.They must have mass, gravity, and cannot be made of atomic particles. What we don�?�¢??t know is everything else.
We can know by reason that they exist and they have some properties, what they are and what they are made of is where the model breaks down. The models do successfully establish existence though.

It’s not conjecture. It’s a necessity, An uncaused-cause, by definition, has 2 properties you can know just by what it is called. It cannot be caused and must be able to cause. To cause it to put into action. The uncaused-cause has to be able to put a cause into action to get a resultant effect. How? IT must have “decided” to do so with out prompting.

Now, speaking of general relativity, Einstein discovered the existence of black-holes with pure math. Math is a branch of deductive reasoning. Out of pure reasoning he was able to figure out these things exist, though no prior evidence what so ever was evident to the fact.As a matter of fact there was no other evidence for them until the '70’s …I don’t really see this as different. You can discover new things to exist with the eyes of pure reason.

…that’s true, and it’s a good argument were it not for the fact that Einstein made sound mathematical predictions that turned out to be true. We cannot make similar mathematical predictions for something that exists outside of time and space, the only thing you end up with is the infinity symbol. So, that brings us back at square one, doesn’t it? What do we do now?

Why can�?�¢??t you understand objects outside of time and space? All metaphysical objects exist outside of time and space, that doesn�?�¢??t mean you can�?�¢??t understand them just because you cannot detect them with your 5 senses.

Square one? No way! We�?�¢??re way ahead of square one�?�¢?�?�¦You learn more from the process than the solution. They are not unsolvable problems; they just haven�?�¢??t been solved yet. What is a black hole? Nobody knows. What is God? Nobody knows.

Not knowing is not equivalent to not existing.[/quote]

…what i’ve learned from all of this is that something theoretical must exist and that we can’t know this something because, by definition, it must exist outside of time and space. Eventhough we can’t know anything about it, according to your logic it must have certain properties. Not being able to know this something, or even not being able to ever prove it’s existence, does not mean it can’t actually exist. Am i right so far?

[/quote]

Pondering the metaphysical is usually left up to the philosophers. It can’t currently be quantified. Qualified? Yes, but some assumptions on personal philosophy are made so the logic used at that point would be a little fuzzy to someone of a different view.

I must applaud this thread for not just being a boring ideological shoutfest.

532

[quote]blake2616 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

…the same definition applies to the uncaused cause: scientific models break down and are no longer applicable. You’re making an arbitrary distinction between the two based on, “we don’t know”…

No, by pure reason we can deduce an uncaused-cause exists�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦By definition it must have some properties. Just black holes�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦.We don�??�?�¢??t know what the uncaused-cause is, what it�??�?�¢??s made of, what is it�??�?�¢??s nature if it has one, etc. With black holes we know by definition properties they must have�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦.They must have mass, gravity, and cannot be made of atomic particles. What we don�??�?�¢??t know is everything else.
We can know by reason that they exist and they have some properties, what they are and what they are made of is where the model breaks down. The models do successfully establish existence though.

It’s not conjecture. It’s a necessity, An uncaused-cause, by definition, has 2 properties you can know just by what it is called. It cannot be caused and must be able to cause. To cause it to put into action. The uncaused-cause has to be able to put a cause into action to get a resultant effect. How? IT must have “decided” to do so with out prompting.

Now, speaking of general relativity, Einstein discovered the existence of black-holes with pure math. Math is a branch of deductive reasoning. Out of pure reasoning he was able to figure out these things exist, though no prior evidence what so ever was evident to the fact.As a matter of fact there was no other evidence for them until the '70’s …I don’t really see this as different. You can discover new things to exist with the eyes of pure reason.

…that’s true, and it’s a good argument were it not for the fact that Einstein made sound mathematical predictions that turned out to be true. We cannot make similar mathematical predictions for something that exists outside of time and space, the only thing you end up with is the infinity symbol. So, that brings us back at square one, doesn’t it? What do we do now?

Why can�??�?�¢??t you understand objects outside of time and space? All metaphysical objects exist outside of time and space, that doesn�??�?�¢??t mean you can�??�?�¢??t understand them just because you cannot detect them with your 5 senses.

Square one? No way! We�??�?�¢??re way ahead of square one�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦You learn more from the process than the solution. They are not unsolvable problems; they just haven�??�?�¢??t been solved yet. What is a black hole? Nobody knows. What is God? Nobody knows.

Not knowing is not equivalent to not existing.[/quote]

…what i’ve learned from all of this is that something theoretical must exist and that we can’t know this something because, by definition, it must exist outside of time and space. Eventhough we can’t know anything about it, according to your logic it must have certain properties. Not being able to know this something, or even not being able to ever prove it’s existence, does not mean it can’t actually exist. Am i right so far?

[/quote]

Pondering the metaphysical is usually left up to the philosophers. It can’t currently be quantified. Qualified? Yes, but some assumptions on personal philosophy are made so the logic used at that point would be a little fuzzy to someone of a different view.

I must applaud this thread for not just being a boring ideological shoutfest. [/quote]

I second that. There are some very good theological debates going on here which is always healthy. Not everyone is going to believe the same thing. I’m under no illusion that one day I’m gonna say the “magic words” that finally makes everyone believe. As I’ve said before, if people that walked and talked with Jesus didn’t believe in his divinity then what chance do I stand converting the world. However, we as Christians need to do a MUCH better job at confessing our beliefs to the non-believing world rather than sitting on our hands acting like we have the eternal secrets to life.

533

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

…the same definition applies to the uncaused cause: scientific models break down and are no longer applicable. You’re making an arbitrary distinction between the two based on, “we don’t know”…

No, by pure reason we can deduce an uncaused-cause exists�?�¢?�?�¦By definition it must have some properties. Just black holes�?�¢?�?�¦.We don�?�¢??t know what the uncaused-cause is, what it�?�¢??s made of, what is it�?�¢??s nature if it has one, etc. With black holes we know by definition properties they must have�?�¢?�?�¦.They must have mass, gravity, and cannot be made of atomic particles. What we don�?�¢??t know is everything else.
We can know by reason that they exist and they have some properties, what they are and what they are made of is where the model breaks down. The models do successfully establish existence though.

It’s not conjecture. It’s a necessity, An uncaused-cause, by definition, has 2 properties you can know just by what it is called. It cannot be caused and must be able to cause. To cause it to put into action. The uncaused-cause has to be able to put a cause into action to get a resultant effect. How? IT must have “decided” to do so with out prompting.

Now, speaking of general relativity, Einstein discovered the existence of black-holes with pure math. Math is a branch of deductive reasoning. Out of pure reasoning he was able to figure out these things exist, though no prior evidence what so ever was evident to the fact.As a matter of fact there was no other evidence for them until the '70’s …I don’t really see this as different. You can discover new things to exist with the eyes of pure reason.

…that’s true, and it’s a good argument were it not for the fact that Einstein made sound mathematical predictions that turned out to be true. We cannot make similar mathematical predictions for something that exists outside of time and space, the only thing you end up with is the infinity symbol. So, that brings us back at square one, doesn’t it? What do we do now?

Why can�?�¢??t you understand objects outside of time and space? All metaphysical objects exist outside of time and space, that doesn�?�¢??t mean you can�?�¢??t understand them just because you cannot detect them with your 5 senses.

Square one? No way! We�?�¢??re way ahead of square one�?�¢?�?�¦You learn more from the process than the solution. They are not unsolvable problems; they just haven�?�¢??t been solved yet. What is a black hole? Nobody knows. What is God? Nobody knows.

Not knowing is not equivalent to not existing.[/quote]

…what i’ve learned from all of this is that something theoretical must exist and that we can’t know this something because, by definition, it must exist outside of time and space. Eventhough we can’t know anything about it, according to your logic it must have certain properties. Not being able to know this something, or even not being able to ever prove it’s existence, does not mean it can’t actually exist. Am i right so far?

[/quote]

Well hold on a minute. First there are plenty of things that exist with in space-time that we don’t know about. Second of all, something we know to exist, like black holes, theoretically that exist outside of space-time as they violate all the rules of it. Yet they exist and we can even measure how big they are.

Further, we can know things about it, however you have to concede it’s existence. Then we can worry about what properties it possesses. And again, by definition of what it is we can know things about it. At least two properties, it cannot be caused and it can and did cause.

It is simple to disprove the theory, just prove that just one premise is incorrect, and the argument meets it’s doom. I have heard some awesome the counter arguments as to the nature of causality and that causes don’t necessitates its effects. But their proofs are more elusive to truth than than the argument from the point of cosmology. However, studying them is worth the time. You learn so much from the mere process. In the end the counter arguments can be countered quite easily. The point of contingency nullified the biggest problem early philosophers had was time, the issue of contingency, and the empirical evidence that there is nothing in the universe that was not begotten by something else really strengthens the argument. Hell, even in metaphysics, there are no metaphysical entities we are aware of, that did not come from somewhere else, save for God himself. Even the understanding of time is a metaphysical construct…

534

[quote]blake2616 wrote:

Pondering the metaphysical is usually left up to the philosophers. It can’t currently be quantified. Qualified? Yes, but some assumptions on personal philosophy are made so the logic used at that point would be a little fuzzy to someone of a different view.

I must applaud this thread for not just being a boring ideological shoutfest. [/quote]

Nah, you deal with the metaphysical everyday. As a matter of fact, you cannot live with out it. You just have to recognize it. You have to think of words before you say them, you have to have an idea before you start a project…And then there is love, that shit makes no sense at all. Even if there are bilogical processes behind them, the “things” themselves are metaphysical entities. If I altered you brain chemicals to be the exact same as they were when you had a particular thought, it’s unlikely you’d have the same thought.

535

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…what i’ve learned from all of this is that something theoretical must exist and that we can’t know this something because, by definition, it must exist outside of time and space. Eventhough we can’t know anything about it, according to your logic it must have certain properties. Not being able to know this something, or even not being able to ever prove it’s existence, does not mean it can’t actually exist. Am i right so far?

[/quote]

Well hold on a minute. First there are plenty of things that exist with in space-time that we don’t know about. Second of all, something we know to exist, like black holes, theoretically that exist outside of space-time as they violate all the rules of it. Yet they exist and we can even measure how big they are.

Further, we can know things about it, however you have to concede it’s existence. Then we can worry about what properties it possesses. And again, by definition of what it is we can know things about it. At least two properties, it cannot be caused and it can and did cause.

It is simple to disprove the theory, just prove that just one premise is incorrect, and the argument meets it’s doom. I have heard some awesome the counter arguments as to the nature of causality and that causes don’t necessitates its effects. But their proofs are more elusive to truth than than the argument from the point of cosmology. However, studying them is worth the time. You learn so much from the mere process. In the end the counter arguments can be countered quite easily. The point of contingency nullified the biggest problem early philosophers had was time, the issue of contingency, and the empirical evidence that there is nothing in the universe that was not begotten by something else really strengthens the argument. Hell, even in metaphysics, there are no metaphysical entities we are aware of, that did not come from somewhere else, save for God himself. Even the understanding of time is a metaphysical construct… [/quote]

…weren’t we talking about the uncaused cause, the only thing that exists outside of time and space? A thing we don’t know exists, of which we know nothing. A thing we, by definition, can’t know anything about. All you have is a logical chain of events that ends in conjecture, nothing more. No matter how much you try to baffle me with bullshit [figure of speech], dividing zero by whatever you come up with still leaves you with zero…

…does it end there for you, pat? I mean, do you simply believe in this uncaused cause or is this belief adorned with further imagery?

536

[quote]pat wrote:
There is nothing in the universe whose existence isn’t contingent upon something else, period…I said nothing.[/quote]

Proof.

537

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
There is nothing in the universe whose existence isn’t contingent upon something else, period…I said nothing.[/quote]

Proof.[/quote]

Easy point out one single thing that verifiability was not caused by something else. All you have to do is find one thing. Good luck.

538

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…what i’ve learned from all of this is that something theoretical must exist and that we can’t know this something because, by definition, it must exist outside of time and space. Eventhough we can’t know anything about it, according to your logic it must have certain properties. Not being able to know this something, or even not being able to ever prove it’s existence, does not mean it can’t actually exist. Am i right so far?

[/quote]

Well hold on a minute. First there are plenty of things that exist with in space-time that we don’t know about. Second of all, something we know to exist, like black holes, theoretically that exist outside of space-time as they violate all the rules of it. Yet they exist and we can even measure how big they are.

Further, we can know things about it, however you have to concede it’s existence. Then we can worry about what properties it possesses. And again, by definition of what it is we can know things about it. At least two properties, it cannot be caused and it can and did cause.

It is simple to disprove the theory, just prove that just one premise is incorrect, and the argument meets it’s doom. I have heard some awesome the counter arguments as to the nature of causality and that causes don’t necessitates its effects. But their proofs are more elusive to truth than than the argument from the point of cosmology. However, studying them is worth the time. You learn so much from the mere process. In the end the counter arguments can be countered quite easily. The point of contingency nullified the biggest problem early philosophers had was time, the issue of contingency, and the empirical evidence that there is nothing in the universe that was not begotten by something else really strengthens the argument. Hell, even in metaphysics, there are no metaphysical entities we are aware of, that did not come from somewhere else, save for God himself. Even the understanding of time is a metaphysical construct… [/quote]

…weren’t we talking about the uncaused cause, the only thing that exists outside of time and space?
[/quote]
You may have been, but anything not made of matter is not subject to time and space.

x/0= sideways 8. Or infinity. ← Not bullshit.
Second of all, its not conjecture if it is derived deductively which in this case it is. The only thing you can do is prove the premises to said conclusion are false. The premises lead directly to it’s conclusion. Conjecture is the stuff of a posteriori, empirical arguments.

I am not trying to baffle you. I am explaining my stance and argument.
Most arguments will blur the lines between science, philosophy and religion. Actually, all are just branches of philosophy.

Not sure what you are asking…Yes, I am religious, but I am not making a religious argument, I am making a philosophical one.
Do I know the nature of God? No, I know somethings but very little.

539

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
There is nothing in the universe whose existence isn’t contingent upon something else, period…I said nothing.[/quote]

Proof.[/quote]

Easy point out one single thing that verifiability was not caused by something else. All you have to do is find one thing. Good luck. [/quote]

I don’t follow. You make claims about the existence of a space fairy, and I’m the one shouldered with the task of disproving it?

And all that aside, this proves what? How do you know it wasn’t Baal, Wotan, Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Thor or even the Golden Calf?

540

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…what i’ve learned from all of this is that something theoretical must exist and that we can’t know this something because, by definition, it must exist outside of time and space. Eventhough we can’t know anything about it, according to your logic it must have certain properties. Not being able to know this something, or even not being able to ever prove it’s existence, does not mean it can’t actually exist. Am i right so far?

[/quote]

Well hold on a minute. First there are plenty of things that exist with in space-time that we don’t know about. Second of all, something we know to exist, like black holes, theoretically that exist outside of space-time as they violate all the rules of it. Yet they exist and we can even measure how big they are.

Further, we can know things about it, however you have to concede it’s existence. Then we can worry about what properties it possesses. And again, by definition of what it is we can know things about it. At least two properties, it cannot be caused and it can and did cause.

It is simple to disprove the theory, just prove that just one premise is incorrect, and the argument meets it’s doom. I have heard some awesome the counter arguments as to the nature of causality and that causes don’t necessitates its effects.

But their proofs are more elusive to truth than than the argument from the point of cosmology. However, studying them is worth the time. You learn so much from the mere process. In the end the counter arguments can be countered quite easily.

The point of contingency nullified the biggest problem early philosophers had was time, the issue of contingency, and the empirical evidence that there is nothing in the universe that was not begotten by something else really strengthens the argument.

Hell, even in metaphysics, there are no metaphysical entities we are aware of, that did not come from somewhere else, save for God himself. Even the understanding of time is a metaphysical construct… [/quote]

…weren’t we talking about the uncaused cause, the only thing that exists outside of time and space?
[/quote]
You may have been, but anything not made of matter is not subject to time and space.

x/0= sideways 8. Or infinity. ← Not bullshit.
Second of all, its not conjecture if it is derived deductively which in this case it is. The only thing you can do is prove the premises to said conclusion are false. The premises lead directly to it’s conclusion. Conjecture is the stuff of a posteriori, empirical arguments.

I am not trying to baffle you. I am explaining my stance and argument.
Most arguments will blur the lines between science, philosophy and religion. Actually, all are just branches of philosophy.

Not sure what you are asking…Yes, I am religious, but I am not making a religious argument, I am making a philosophical one.
Do I know the nature of God? No, I know somethings but very little.[/quote]

…you’re not making it any clearer for me pat. To me it seems like you’re making this up as you go along. I’m sorry, but because of this i must say: i’m out…