This video was really good. The ideas that truth is truth regardless of it’s source and there are not contradictory truths explains my views very well. If there are two contradictory truths as explanation of a single entity, one of them is wrong. Or our understanding is flawed. These are things I have been espousing for many years on these forums. Of course Aquinas’s work on contingencies are also something very near and dear to my heart.
That is why I said, you don’t need faith to know God exists. Logic tells us that He must. It takes faith to believe God is who he says he is in the scriptures and to trust him implicitly without the benefit of sensory interaction with Him.
You can believe in the Uncaused-cause as a stagnant lifeless being who started and left the creation to just follow the ‘rules’ put forth by creation, which is what the deists believe. Of course, that’s a partial denial of what the Uncaused-cause must be. For to be what it is, it must possess something like a will, and there is nothing to suggest will died off in the process of initial cause. That’s imposing a temporal limitation on something that by definition cannot be limited in such a way.
Aristotle brought it up originally, it was Aquinas who removed the problem of time. Hume spent most of his time trying to disprove it by attacking causation itself. While he did not succeed in his goal, he certainly created more insight into the nature of causation vs. correlation. What he in turn did had more effect on science than it did religion. In any way it was brilliant. Hume did not refute the cosmological argument.
[EDIT:]
What Hume is stating is that the nature of causation as we understand it. In other words we imply causation where causation may not exist. And he is right. Observational causation is implied not certain. It’s correlation at best and again he is right.
He takes on existence in itself, where the material world cannot be determined fully to exist by the inherent flaws of perception, again he’s right.
What it does not deal with is metaphysical entities. Cosmology isn’t merely interested in physical existence. The argument can endure a claim that nothing physical actually exists. It deals with existence itself, in whatever form that takes, be it material or immaterial.
While one can make the argument that physical existence is not provable (and it’s not), there is nonetheless existence. And an existence cannot be a function of itself and is therefore dependent on something for it’s existence.
This video was really good. The ideas that truth is truth regardless of it’s source and there are not contradictory truths explains my views very well. If there are two contradictory truths as explanation of a single entity, one of them is wrong. Or our understanding is flawed. These are things I have been espousing for many years on these forums. Of course Aquinas’s work on contingencies are also something very near and dear to my heart.
That is why I said, you don’t need faith to know God exists. Logic tells us that He must. It takes faith to believe God is who he says he is in the scriptures and to trust him implicitly without the benefit of sensory interaction with Him.
You can believe in the Uncaused-cause as a stagnant lifeless being who started and left the creation to just follow the ‘rules’ put forth by creation, which is what the deists believe. Of course, that’s a partial denial of what the Uncaused-cause must be. For to be what it is, it must possess something like a will, and there is nothing to suggest will died off in the process of initial cause. That’s imposing a temporal limitation on something that by definition cannot be limited in such a way.
Aristotle brought it up originally, it was Aquinas who removed the problem of time. Hume spent most of his time trying to disprove it by attacking causation itself. While he did not succeed in his goal, he certainly created more insight into the nature of causation vs. correlation. What he in turn did had more effect on science than it did religion. In any way it was brilliant. Hume did not refute the cosmological argument.
[EDIT:]
What Hume is stating is that the nature of causation as we understand it. In other words we imply causation where causation may not exist. And he is right. Observational causation is implied not certain. It’s correlation at best and again he is right.
He takes on existence in itself, where the material world cannot be determined fully to exist by the inherent flaws of perception, again he’s right.
What it does not deal with is metaphysical entities. Cosmology isn’t merely interested in physical existence. The argument can endure a claim that nothing physical actually exists. It deals with existence itself, in whatever form that takes, be it material or immaterial.
While one can make the argument that physical existence is not provable (and it’s not), there is nonetheless existence. And an existence cannot be a function of itself and is therefore dependent on something for it’s existence.[/quote]
The first cause itself is a fallacy if it argues that everything existing today or ever existed, has it’s existence wrapped up in an earlier contingent (things could have been a little different, different folks could have had children and you never were born). But when it comes to God, you just throw the rule out the door. If you look at it this way, it’s indeed a fallacy since you bring up the rule that everything must have come from some contingent. Hume points out that once you set up that rule you have to explain where God came from, as it’s built into the logic of the explanation.
If everything came from something as your rule, you need to be careful how you define, “something.” Is that something intended to mean one thing? Or is the statement more broad and as we understand it, meaning everything came about via causation and if we had the knowledge we could explain things infinitely then it’s necessary for infinite regress.
This signifies for me, the silly extends we must go through in an attempt to, “prove the existence of God.” So to me, it just seems like a really odd and weakened place to launch an argument of existence from. Especially considering how Aquinas wanted us to use science and logic. When faith and science don’t make sense together, one has to be wrong.
This video was really good. The ideas that truth is truth regardless of it’s source and there are not contradictory truths explains my views very well. If there are two contradictory truths as explanation of a single entity, one of them is wrong. Or our understanding is flawed. These are things I have been espousing for many years on these forums. Of course Aquinas’s work on contingencies are also something very near and dear to my heart.
That is why I said, you don’t need faith to know God exists. Logic tells us that He must. It takes faith to believe God is who he says he is in the scriptures and to trust him implicitly without the benefit of sensory interaction with Him.
You can believe in the Uncaused-cause as a stagnant lifeless being who started and left the creation to just follow the ‘rules’ put forth by creation, which is what the deists believe. Of course, that’s a partial denial of what the Uncaused-cause must be. For to be what it is, it must possess something like a will, and there is nothing to suggest will died off in the process of initial cause. That’s imposing a temporal limitation on something that by definition cannot be limited in such a way.
Aristotle brought it up originally, it was Aquinas who removed the problem of time. Hume spent most of his time trying to disprove it by attacking causation itself. While he did not succeed in his goal, he certainly created more insight into the nature of causation vs. correlation. What he in turn did had more effect on science than it did religion. In any way it was brilliant. Hume did not refute the cosmological argument.
[EDIT:]
What Hume is stating is that the nature of causation as we understand it. In other words we imply causation where causation may not exist. And he is right. Observational causation is implied not certain. It’s correlation at best and again he is right.
He takes on existence in itself, where the material world cannot be determined fully to exist by the inherent flaws of perception, again he’s right.
What it does not deal with is metaphysical entities. Cosmology isn’t merely interested in physical existence. The argument can endure a claim that nothing physical actually exists. It deals with existence itself, in whatever form that takes, be it material or immaterial.
While one can make the argument that physical existence is not provable (and it’s not), there is nonetheless existence. And an existence cannot be a function of itself and is therefore dependent on something for it’s existence.[/quote]
The first cause itself is a fallacy if it argues that everything existing today or ever existed, has it’s existence wrapped up in an earlier contingent (things could have been a little different, different folks could have had children and you never were born). But when it comes to God, you just throw the rule out the door. If you look at it this way, it’s indeed a fallacy since you bring up the rule that everything must have come from some contingent. Hume points out that once you set up that rule you have to explain where God came from, as it’s built into the logic of the explanation.
[/quote]
That’s not really what the argument says. You’re counter claim may have validity if time were a factor, but contingency or dependence does not require an ‘earlier’ cause. It’s also not bound in anyway by perception. For instance, to say that matter depends on charged particles for it’s existence isn’t a statement of cause and effect in a temporal sense. It’s not ‘charged particles therefore matter’. It doesn’t even require that matter exist. However, by definition for matter to exist, it must have charged particles. So existence, dependency, contigency is based on truth by definition. If matter does exist, it must contain charged particles.
If you want to go metaphysical, the say a ‘law’ has components of it that make that law true. Without the components there is no law.
Hume’s observations on causation were very important in this regard. Because by observation we can never ‘prove’ a causal relationship. We can only observe correlation which may infer causal relationships, but does not prove them. This problem is, however solved by dependence. An observered causal relationship may or may not be true, but dependence is true by definition. Big difference.
I still cannot figure out why people hinge their hopes on a case where a defined logical fallacy may not be true at least in one case. An infinite regress is a fallacy because it begs the question, not because things are not infinite. Infinite regress requires that a ‘thing’ is a factor of itself. People who make this (very bad) counter claim always focus on the wrong thing. They focus on infinity. The problem isn’t infinity, it’s the regress. Infinity exists, infinite regresses do not. The authors poor example of using division completely misses what a regress is. A regress is not division, nor is it a matter of getting smaller. It’s removal. It’s subtraction, not division. When you are applying a regress to a event or a object of matter, you are not dividing it, you are removing properties to get to it’s core property. So this argument for the existence of infinite regress is patently false. Infinite regress is circular reasoning, that’s why it’s a fallacy. Eventually, something will have to be a factor of itself to be able to regress infinity.
[quote]
This signifies for me, the silly extends we must go through in an attempt to, “prove the existence of God.” So to me, it just seems like a really odd and weakened place to launch an argument of existence from. Especially considering how Aquinas wanted us to use science and logic. When faith and science don’t make sense together, one has to be wrong. [/quote]
It’s far from a silly extent. It’s elegantly simple. Something which exists cannot be a factor of itself for it’s own existence. Therefore it depends on something else which is not itself for it’s existence. The only way to solve the problem is to have something the exists without contingency. And by definition, there can only be one thing that fits the criteria. It just so happens that what most people understand as God, and this Necessary Being share the same properties. Rather than understanding it religiously or through revelation, it’s derived logically.
You can try, but this argument is irrefutable.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Whether you discover God by logic or revelation, >>>[/quote]But Pat, don’t you see? Logic IS itself revelation. That’s the point. The very act of THINKING. Thinking ANYTHING at all. Is for humans created in God’s image already indisputable inescapable revelation OF that God. That’s where finite sinful man goes wrong. He thinks he is equipped to operate his mind in autonomous independence from the God who is it’s engineer. That was the very first sin. God tells Adam and Eve in essence: “I’m givin you one rule. Don’t eat from THAT tree.” There’s nothing poisonous or evil about that particular tree. He’s just giving them a single command.
Along comes the serpent, who wisely goes after Eve first BTW (LOL, that’ll get me in trouble huh? LOL!! Paul told Timothy AND the Corinthians that she was the one deceived.) He tells her, in essence again: “You don’t need God tellin you how and what to think. Ain’t you capable of making your own far better decisions? God just doesn’t want you to be like Him. There’s more knowledge here to gain if you will JUST throw off these restrictive boundaries God has unfairly imposed upon you.” EVERY SINGLE sin there has ever been is EXACTLY that. I’ll make up MY OWN mind and no No God is telling me I’m wrong. Since we are all born from Adam whose corruption we’ve inherited, we START where Adam left off. "I’LL determine what’s true and false thank you very much. "I’LL check. If there’s a God I’LL let ya know. At least Adam and Eve didn’t try to determine for themselves whether there was a God at all like we do. Man cannot fire a single synapse in his brain without by that very act establishing and testifying to the God he denies.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< he IS very much an object of investigation. >>>[/quote] Not legitimately. See above. [quote]pat wrote:<<< One method does not dishonor Him vs. another. >>>[/quote] Leaving the honor thing alone for now, one method is true to the bible and one is not. Very first words. “In the beginning GOD…” Revelation could not possibly start otherwise. We reverse this just like Adam did only worse. "I’ll start with me first and tell YOU whether there’s a God or not and IF there is, what kind He gets to be.[quote]pat wrote:<<< He provided the tools after all, >>>[/quote] He did indeed. He designed them into us to be used in submission and service to Himself only. We are neither allowed nor equipped to function any other way. That’s why we don’t. Look at this country now that we’ve decided in earnest that debauchery and perversion are preferable to the living God. It’s even worse, Lord have mercy, when those calling themselves by His name are leaders in the debauchery and perversion. I’m thinking of liberal apostate alleged protestants now.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< why would he do so if he didn’t want to be known? >>>[/quote] But of course He wants to be known. It’s not simply that He WANTS to be known. It is not possible to AVOID knowing him. Consider this passage from the 1st chapter of Paul’s epistle to the church at Rome: [quote]18-For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19-For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20-For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21-For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22-Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23-and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. [/quote]Paul says that not just any ol God, but THE God, His “invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature”, are not just out there, but CLEARLY SEEN!!! Nobody anywhere has ANY excuse. Open your eyes? (or leave em closed), THERE HE IS!!! Everything He’s created bears His signature and fingerprint. The problem is man’s deadness and blindness in sin. Not God’s being hidden somewhere. [quote]pat wrote:<<< Being the object of an investigation does not mean that all things that are objects of investigation are equal. If you and the President were both being investigated by the FBI, the president is far more valuable an object of investigation than you or I would be. To say so is committing the fallacy of affirming the antecedent. [/quote] This misses the point though man. NO investigation of ANY kind or ANYthing can take place without already using those tools you yourself mentioned. In other words without having already ripped God off while foolishly pretending to be able to reason without Him. I have to go do something. Just know that though I was mean to you before, I do not believe what I believe because I hate Catholics my friend. I believe what I believe because God has tattooed it on my soul and I am unable to believe anything else.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Whether you discover God by logic or revelation, >>>[/quote]But Pat, don’t you see? Logic IS itself revelation. That’s the point. The very act of THINKING. Thinking ANYTHING at all. Is for humans created in God’s image already indisputable inescapable revelation OF that God. That’s where finite sinful man goes wrong. He thinks he is equipped to operate his mind in autonomous independence from the God who is it’s engineer. That was the very first sin. God tells Adam and Eve in essence: “I’m givin you one rule. Don’t eat from THAT tree.” There’s nothing poisonous or evil about that particular tree. He’s just giving them a single command.
Along comes the serpent, who wisely goes after Eve first BTW (LOL, that’ll get me in trouble huh? LOL!! Paul told Timothy AND the Corinthians that she was the one deceived.) He tells her, in essence again: “You don’t need God tellin you how and what to think. Ain’t you capable of making your own far better decisions? God just doesn’t want you to be like Him. There’s more knowledge here to gain if you will JUST throw off these restrictive boundaries God has unfairly imposed upon you.” EVERY SINGLE sin there has ever been is EXACTLY that. I’ll make up MY OWN mind and no No God is telling me I’m wrong. Since we are all born from Adam whose corruption we’ve inherited, we START where Adam left off. "I’LL determine what’s true and false thank you very much. "I’LL check. If there’s a God I’LL let ya know. At least Adam and Eve didn’t try to determine for themselves whether there was a God at all like we do. Man cannot fire a single synapse in his brain without by that very act establishing and testifying to the God he denies.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< he IS very much an object of investigation. >>>[/quote] Not legitimately. See above. [quote]pat wrote:<<< One method does not dishonor Him vs. another. >>>[/quote] Leaving the honor thing alone for now, one method is true to the bible and one is not. Very first words. “In the beginning GOD…” Revelation could not possibly start otherwise. We reverse this just like Adam did only worse. "I’ll start with me first and tell YOU whether there’s a God or not and IF there is, what kind He gets to be.[quote]pat wrote:<<< He provided the tools after all, >>>[/quote] He did indeed. He designed them into us to be used in submission and service to Himself only. We are neither allowed nor equipped to function any other way. That’s why we don’t. Look at this country now that we’ve decided in earnest that debauchery and perversion are preferable to the living God. It’s even worse, Lord have mercy, when those calling themselves by His name are leaders in the debauchery and perversion. I’m thinking of liberal apostate alleged protestants now.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< why would he do so if he didn’t want to be known? >>>[/quote] But of course He wants to be known. It’s not simply that He WANTS to be known. It is not possible to AVOID knowing him. Consider this passage from the 1st chapter of Paul’s epistle to the church at Rome: [quote]18-For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19-For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20-For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21-For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22-Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23-and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. [/quote]Paul says that not just any ol God, but THE God, His “invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature”, are not just out there, but CLEARLY SEEN!!! Nobody anywhere has ANY excuse. Open your eyes? (or leave em closed), THERE HE IS!!! Everything He’s created bears His signature and fingerprint. The problem is man’s deadness and blindness in sin. Not God’s being hidden somewhere. [quote]pat wrote:<<< Being the object of an investigation does not mean that all things that are objects of investigation are equal. If you and the President were both being investigated by the FBI, the president is far more valuable an object of investigation than you or I would be. To say so is committing the fallacy of affirming the antecedent. [/quote] This misses the point though man. NO investigation of ANY kind or ANYthing can take place without already using those tools you yourself mentioned. In other words without having already ripped God off while foolishly pretending to be able to reason without Him. I have to go do something. Just know that though I was mean to you before, I do not believe what I believe because I hate Catholics my friend. I believe what I believe because God has tattooed it on my soul and I am unable to believe anything else.
[/quote]
So, other than the fact we can prove that the earth is ca. 4.5 billion years old, you still think that a book written around 2000 years ago is relevant?
You need professional help. If you think you’ve spoken to “god”, you need that help even sooner. Command hallucination is diagnostic, generally of schizophrenia.
If we, as you claim are created in god’s image, why would we reproduce sexually? Doesn’t make much sense for an entity like the farce that you describe to require sexual reproduction, it entails a second entity, at least as powerful as the first required for “godly” reproduction. It also shits on your theory of there only being one god. In addition, if we’re made in the image of your imaginary friend, why on earth would our eye be as poor as it is? The organ we have is analogous to a flat screen TV, with the power cords attached to the front of the screen. To make it worse, someone has drilled straight through the screen to feed the cables around the back of the unit.
Surely an all knowing, all powerful entity wouldn’t make a stupid and rookie mistake like this.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Whether you discover God by logic or revelation, >>>[/quote]But Pat, don’t you see? Logic IS itself revelation. That’s the point. The very act of THINKING. Thinking ANYTHING at all. Is for humans created in God’s image already indisputable inescapable revelation OF that God. That’s where finite sinful man goes wrong. He thinks he is equipped to operate his mind in autonomous independence from the God who is it’s engineer. That was the very first sin. God tells Adam and Eve in essence: “I’m givin you one rule. Don’t eat from THAT tree.” There’s nothing poisonous or evil about that particular tree. He’s just giving them a single command.
Along comes the serpent, who wisely goes after Eve first BTW (LOL, that’ll get me in trouble huh? LOL!! Paul told Timothy AND the Corinthians that she was the one deceived.) He tells her, in essence again: “You don’t need God tellin you how and what to think. Ain’t you capable of making your own far better decisions? God just doesn’t want you to be like Him. There’s more knowledge here to gain if you will JUST throw off these restrictive boundaries God has unfairly imposed upon you.” EVERY SINGLE sin there has ever been is EXACTLY that. I’ll make up MY OWN mind and no No God is telling me I’m wrong. Since we are all born from Adam whose corruption we’ve inherited, we START where Adam left off. "I’LL determine what’s true and false thank you very much. "I’LL check. If there’s a God I’LL let ya know. At least Adam and Eve didn’t try to determine for themselves whether there was a God at all like we do. Man cannot fire a single synapse in his brain without by that very act establishing and testifying to the God he denies.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< he IS very much an object of investigation. >>>[/quote] Not legitimately. See above. [quote]pat wrote:<<< One method does not dishonor Him vs. another. >>>[/quote] Leaving the honor thing alone for now, one method is true to the bible and one is not. Very first words. “In the beginning GOD…” Revelation could not possibly start otherwise. We reverse this just like Adam did only worse. "I’ll start with me first and tell YOU whether there’s a God or not and IF there is, what kind He gets to be.[quote]pat wrote:<<< He provided the tools after all, >>>[/quote] He did indeed. He designed them into us to be used in submission and service to Himself only. We are neither allowed nor equipped to function any other way. That’s why we don’t. Look at this country now that we’ve decided in earnest that debauchery and perversion are preferable to the living God. It’s even worse, Lord have mercy, when those calling themselves by His name are leaders in the debauchery and perversion. I’m thinking of liberal apostate alleged protestants now.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< why would he do so if he didn’t want to be known? >>>[/quote] But of course He wants to be known. It’s not simply that He WANTS to be known. It is not possible to AVOID knowing him. Consider this passage from the 1st chapter of Paul’s epistle to the church at Rome: [quote]18-For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19-For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20-For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21-For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22-Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23-and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. [/quote]Paul says that not just any ol God, but THE God, His “invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature”, are not just out there, but CLEARLY SEEN!!! Nobody anywhere has ANY excuse. Open your eyes? (or leave em closed), THERE HE IS!!! Everything He’s created bears His signature and fingerprint. The problem is man’s deadness and blindness in sin. Not God’s being hidden somewhere. [quote]pat wrote:<<< Being the object of an investigation does not mean that all things that are objects of investigation are equal. If you and the President were both being investigated by the FBI, the president is far more valuable an object of investigation than you or I would be. To say so is committing the fallacy of affirming the antecedent. [/quote] This misses the point though man. NO investigation of ANY kind or ANYthing can take place without already using those tools you yourself mentioned. In other words without having already ripped God off while foolishly pretending to be able to reason without Him. I have to go do something. Just know that though I was mean to you before, I do not believe what I believe because I hate Catholics my friend. I believe what I believe because God has tattooed it on my soul and I am unable to believe anything else.
[/quote]
So, other than the fact we can prove that the earth is ca. 4.5 billion years old, you still think that a book written around 2000 years ago is relevant?
You need professional help. If you think you’ve spoken to “god”, you need that help even sooner. Command hallucination is diagnostic, generally of schizophrenia.
If we, as you claim are created in god’s image, why would we reproduce sexually? Doesn’t make much sense for an entity like the farce that you describe to require sexual reproduction, it entails a second entity, at least as powerful as the first required for “godly” reproduction. It also shits on your theory of there only being one god. In addition, if we’re made in the image of your imaginary friend, why on earth would our eye be as poor as it is? The organ we have is analogous to a flat screen TV, with the power cords attached to the front of the screen. To make it worse, someone has drilled straight through the screen to feed the cables around the back of the unit.
Surely an all knowing, all powerful entity wouldn’t make a stupid and rookie mistake like this.
Lemme know when you’re ready to have a real conversation Cryogen. Of all the brash insolent children who have come wandering through here, you are maybe the least equipped since OldManJoe last year. Who whjile old, was certainly a child. I’m not calling you stupid, but you ARE simple and undisciplined in your present state of mind. It’s a cinch you have practically no experience in real world debating. Epistemology thread. Go ahead. The Secret History of Money - Politics and World Issues - Forums - T Nation
This video was really good. The ideas that truth is truth regardless of it’s source and there are not contradictory truths explains my views very well. If there are two contradictory truths as explanation of a single entity, one of them is wrong. Or our understanding is flawed. These are things I have been espousing for many years on these forums. Of course Aquinas’s work on contingencies are also something very near and dear to my heart.
That is why I said, you don’t need faith to know God exists. Logic tells us that He must. It takes faith to believe God is who he says he is in the scriptures and to trust him implicitly without the benefit of sensory interaction with Him.
You can believe in the Uncaused-cause as a stagnant lifeless being who started and left the creation to just follow the ‘rules’ put forth by creation, which is what the deists believe. Of course, that’s a partial denial of what the Uncaused-cause must be. For to be what it is, it must possess something like a will, and there is nothing to suggest will died off in the process of initial cause. That’s imposing a temporal limitation on something that by definition cannot be limited in such a way.
Aristotle brought it up originally, it was Aquinas who removed the problem of time. Hume spent most of his time trying to disprove it by attacking causation itself. While he did not succeed in his goal, he certainly created more insight into the nature of causation vs. correlation. What he in turn did had more effect on science than it did religion. In any way it was brilliant. Hume did not refute the cosmological argument.
[EDIT:]
What Hume is stating is that the nature of causation as we understand it. In other words we imply causation where causation may not exist. And he is right. Observational causation is implied not certain. It’s correlation at best and again he is right.
He takes on existence in itself, where the material world cannot be determined fully to exist by the inherent flaws of perception, again he’s right.
What it does not deal with is metaphysical entities. Cosmology isn’t merely interested in physical existence. The argument can endure a claim that nothing physical actually exists. It deals with existence itself, in whatever form that takes, be it material or immaterial.
While one can make the argument that physical existence is not provable (and it’s not), there is nonetheless existence. And an existence cannot be a function of itself and is therefore dependent on something for it’s existence.[/quote]
The first cause itself is a fallacy if it argues that everything existing today or ever existed, has it’s existence wrapped up in an earlier contingent (things could have been a little different, different folks could have had children and you never were born). But when it comes to God, you just throw the rule out the door. If you look at it this way, it’s indeed a fallacy since you bring up the rule that everything must have come from some contingent. Hume points out that once you set up that rule you have to explain where God came from, as it’s built into the logic of the explanation.
[/quote]
That’s not really what the argument says. You’re counter claim may have validity if time were a factor, but contingency or dependence does not require an ‘earlier’ cause. It’s also not bound in anyway by perception. For instance, to say that matter depends on charged particles for it’s existence isn’t a statement of cause and effect in a temporal sense. It’s not ‘charged particles therefore matter’. It doesn’t even require that matter exist. However, by definition for matter to exist, it must have charged particles. So existence, dependency, contigency is based on truth by definition. If matter does exist, it must contain charged particles.
If you want to go metaphysical, the say a ‘law’ has components of it that make that law true. Without the components there is no law.
Hume’s observations on causation were very important in this regard. Because by observation we can never ‘prove’ a causal relationship. We can only observe correlation which may infer causal relationships, but does not prove them. This problem is, however solved by dependence. An observered causal relationship may or may not be true, but dependence is true by definition. Big difference.
I still cannot figure out why people hinge their hopes on a case where a defined logical fallacy may not be true at least in one case. An infinite regress is a fallacy because it begs the question, not because things are not infinite. Infinite regress requires that a ‘thing’ is a factor of itself. People who make this (very bad) counter claim always focus on the wrong thing. They focus on infinity. The problem isn’t infinity, it’s the regress. Infinity exists, infinite regresses do not. The authors poor example of using division completely misses what a regress is. A regress is not division, nor is it a matter of getting smaller. It’s removal. It’s subtraction, not division. When you are applying a regress to a event or a object of matter, you are not dividing it, you are removing properties to get to it’s core property. So this argument for the existence of infinite regress is patently false. Infinite regress is circular reasoning, that’s why it’s a fallacy. Eventually, something will have to be a factor of itself to be able to regress infinity.
[quote]
This signifies for me, the silly extends we must go through in an attempt to, “prove the existence of God.” So to me, it just seems like a really odd and weakened place to launch an argument of existence from. Especially considering how Aquinas wanted us to use science and logic. When faith and science don’t make sense together, one has to be wrong. [/quote]
It’s far from a silly extent. It’s elegantly simple. Something which exists cannot be a factor of itself for it’s own existence. Therefore it depends on something else which is not itself for it’s existence. The only way to solve the problem is to have something the exists without contingency. And by definition, there can only be one thing that fits the criteria. It just so happens that what most people understand as God, and this Necessary Being share the same properties. Rather than understanding it religiously or through revelation, it’s derived logically.
You can try, but this argument is irrefutable.[/quote]
It’s a silly place to argue from when the explanation itself requires infinite explanations of contingents, it’s built right into Aquinas’ argument.
Again, you can’t have a first when your scale is infinity, it’s like asking someone to show you the first number on an infinite number line.
What would Aquinas say today? I’ll wager he’d take what we know about physics and argue that perhaps time moves infinitely forward, perhaps during steady state before the Universe was created, before time there was God, and he set up the big bang? I’m only imagining what Aquinas might argue if he were around today since we don’t see eye to eye on this subject.
Given the Universe is expanding (and will likely end as a result), it’s still hard to say that there is infinite time going forward. I’m glad most everyone here has some basic science under their belts.
Have you been honest with yourself considering what you believe Aquinas would have put forth today? IMO he was a no nonsense sort of guy…
This video was really good. The ideas that truth is truth regardless of it’s source and there are not contradictory truths explains my views very well. If there are two contradictory truths as explanation of a single entity, one of them is wrong. Or our understanding is flawed. These are things I have been espousing for many years on these forums. Of course Aquinas’s work on contingencies are also something very near and dear to my heart.
That is why I said, you don’t need faith to know God exists. Logic tells us that He must. It takes faith to believe God is who he says he is in the scriptures and to trust him implicitly without the benefit of sensory interaction with Him.
You can believe in the Uncaused-cause as a stagnant lifeless being who started and left the creation to just follow the ‘rules’ put forth by creation, which is what the deists believe. Of course, that’s a partial denial of what the Uncaused-cause must be. For to be what it is, it must possess something like a will, and there is nothing to suggest will died off in the process of initial cause. That’s imposing a temporal limitation on something that by definition cannot be limited in such a way.
Aristotle brought it up originally, it was Aquinas who removed the problem of time. Hume spent most of his time trying to disprove it by attacking causation itself. While he did not succeed in his goal, he certainly created more insight into the nature of causation vs. correlation. What he in turn did had more effect on science than it did religion. In any way it was brilliant. Hume did not refute the cosmological argument.
[EDIT:]
What Hume is stating is that the nature of causation as we understand it. In other words we imply causation where causation may not exist. And he is right. Observational causation is implied not certain. It’s correlation at best and again he is right.
He takes on existence in itself, where the material world cannot be determined fully to exist by the inherent flaws of perception, again he’s right.
What it does not deal with is metaphysical entities. Cosmology isn’t merely interested in physical existence. The argument can endure a claim that nothing physical actually exists. It deals with existence itself, in whatever form that takes, be it material or immaterial.
While one can make the argument that physical existence is not provable (and it’s not), there is nonetheless existence. And an existence cannot be a function of itself and is therefore dependent on something for it’s existence.[/quote]
The first cause itself is a fallacy if it argues that everything existing today or ever existed, has it’s existence wrapped up in an earlier contingent (things could have been a little different, different folks could have had children and you never were born). But when it comes to God, you just throw the rule out the door. If you look at it this way, it’s indeed a fallacy since you bring up the rule that everything must have come from some contingent. Hume points out that once you set up that rule you have to explain where God came from, as it’s built into the logic of the explanation.
[/quote]
That’s not really what the argument says. You’re counter claim may have validity if time were a factor, but contingency or dependence does not require an ‘earlier’ cause. It’s also not bound in anyway by perception. For instance, to say that matter depends on charged particles for it’s existence isn’t a statement of cause and effect in a temporal sense. It’s not ‘charged particles therefore matter’. It doesn’t even require that matter exist. However, by definition for matter to exist, it must have charged particles. So existence, dependency, contigency is based on truth by definition. If matter does exist, it must contain charged particles.
If you want to go metaphysical, the say a ‘law’ has components of it that make that law true. Without the components there is no law.
Hume’s observations on causation were very important in this regard. Because by observation we can never ‘prove’ a causal relationship. We can only observe correlation which may infer causal relationships, but does not prove them. This problem is, however solved by dependence. An observered causal relationship may or may not be true, but dependence is true by definition. Big difference.
I still cannot figure out why people hinge their hopes on a case where a defined logical fallacy may not be true at least in one case. An infinite regress is a fallacy because it begs the question, not because things are not infinite. Infinite regress requires that a ‘thing’ is a factor of itself. People who make this (very bad) counter claim always focus on the wrong thing. They focus on infinity. The problem isn’t infinity, it’s the regress. Infinity exists, infinite regresses do not. The authors poor example of using division completely misses what a regress is. A regress is not division, nor is it a matter of getting smaller. It’s removal. It’s subtraction, not division. When you are applying a regress to a event or a object of matter, you are not dividing it, you are removing properties to get to it’s core property. So this argument for the existence of infinite regress is patently false. Infinite regress is circular reasoning, that’s why it’s a fallacy. Eventually, something will have to be a factor of itself to be able to regress infinity.
That’s not how regression works. There is not an infinite amount of contingencies. It’s logically impossible to have infinite amount of contingency because it makes an entity contingent upon itself which is circular which is why it’s a fallacy. This whole line of reasoning does not work for that purpose it’s totally illogical. That’s why the infinite regress has long been dismissed as a counter argument to the cosmological argument. Infinite regress is circular reasoning, that makes it fallacious. You cannot counter argue or make any sort of argument with a built in logical fallacy as your basis and expect it to hold up. It doesn’t and it cannot. It violates the very rules of basic logic.
Aquinas’s argument does not have to change one iota. He would simply reject using a logical fallacy as a counter argument as he should.
The revelations in Physics only helps to strengthen not weaken the argument. If we are using ‘the Universe’ as the basis and core of existence, the universe as we know it, is finite, not infinite.
The other problem is the temporal reflections in your statements. There is no ‘before’ the big bang, or ‘before’ the universe. Time is a function of matter and it’s movement. Where matter and movement are absent, so is time. There is no ‘before God’ because it would be logically impossible for there to have been any such thing. By definition, being uncaused, or non-contingent, or non-dependent necessarily posits that there is no before.
When you are dealing with metaphysics, time is not a factor. All metaphysical existence is temporally eternal. So it really doesn’t matter what physical matter does. Physical matter is merely a slave, a result of metaphysics. Nothing physical can exist without it’s metaphysical counter part, however, the metaphysics work fine without the existence of physical matter.
Matter is not infinite, space is not infinite, and time can be theoretically infinite, but that depends on matter/ energy and movement or change.
Like I said, Aquinas wouldn’t have to change a thing, save maybe for his approach or more detailed explanations of what he means. In any event, the argument stands, and using a logical fallacy is not a refutation. It’s a fail right out of the gate.
The only hope of actually proving the argument wrong is to prove something can exist non-contingently and not be the Uncaused-cause. The only hope is to prove one of the premises incorrect. Sadly most people who have attempted to disprove the argument, haven’t taken the opportunity to learn it very well in any detail. Most counter arguments I have seen, counter argue things it does not even say, which is pretty terrible.
This is a good (and short) link talking about what the Cosmological Argument is not:
It covers most of the mistakes people make with it.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Whether you discover God by logic or revelation, >>>[/quote]But Pat, don’t you see? Logic IS itself revelation. That’s the point. The very act of THINKING. Thinking ANYTHING at all.
[/quote]
I never said anything different. Humans are in capable of creation only discovery and the reordering of information. Alas, logic, revelation and thinking are all contingent entities. I don’t see the problem.
Well, logic is a mode of discovery. It makes no rules, it is itself subject to certain rules that make a claim either logical or illogical. Logic in no way is an imposition of man creating or ruling itself. That’s a vast leap to make and it’s actually not one that can be made. Logic in no means is a way of ‘playing God’ it’s a method of discovery. So again, I fail to see the problem. I think your making it to be a boogy man that it simply is not. Seeking wisdom, searching for truth is not a sin, in fact we are call to do that.
That’s a totally bastardization of what logic is and how it works. It’s not interested in ordering things in matter of importance. It simply starts with premises which leads to a conclusion. That does not posit that man makes himself more important by starting with himself. That’s simply not what it does. I’ll be honest, this sounds more like programming than learning or revelation.
If you take an honest look at what logic is able to tell us, it’s the same thing the Bible does. It just a different methodology.
Correct, and in the absence of divine revelation, you can only reach those same conclusions by logic. All men are subject to judgment because the truth is and always has been attainable, whether God revealed himself to you through divine revelation or not. If you have not the benefit of divine revelation, truth is revealed through creation. Creation speaks about it’s creator, but you cannot know that if you don’t bother to ask the questions. To not even ask is the sin. That or receiving the answers and denying their truth.
I never claimed that anything can be reasoned without him. If you look closely at the causal chain and it’s resulting necessary conclusion, it says the same thing. Like I said before, truth is truth. The source of it doesn’t matter as much as what the truth of the matter is. Like I said, even logic is contingent. And a look at the cosmological argument shows that all contingencies are dependent on the one non-contingent Necessary Being. There is no disagreement between the nature of God as explained in the Bible and that which is discovered through logic. Divine revelation expounds on God’s nature a little more fully, but at their core they say the exact same things. There is one Creator of Being on which all depends for it’s existence and there cannot be another because it’s impossible for there to be another.
If the Philistines, Amekalites, etc. applied a little logic, they could not have concluded the existence of a baal or dagon or anything else because logically, they could not exist, especially in little medal and wooden figurines.
I think if you could see that these things actually agree and are compatible, not at odds or incompatible, you would not be so afraid of it. Anybody who tells you to fear truth has something to fear for themselves and are using it to selfish ends. One who is truly interested in truth, has nothing to fear from what is says. If somebody says “Be afraid of ‘X’, don’t investigate for it is evil” is probably lying.
So, other than the fact we can prove that the earth is ca. 4.5 billion years old, you still think that a book written around 2000 years ago is relevant?
[/quote]
It’s about 4000 years old, but who’s splitting hairs. It’s absolutely still relevant. You treating it like a science book is the silly part. You claiming that a book who changed the world and is still the most popular book in the world as irrelevant is flat laughable.
So when you have nothing quality to say, resort to insults and belittling. That surely helps your claim.
[quote]
If we, as you claim are created in god’s image, why would we reproduce sexually? Doesn’t make much sense for an entity like the farce that you describe to require sexual reproduction, it entails a second entity, at least as powerful as the first required for “godly” reproduction. It also shits on your theory of there only being one god. In addition, if we’re made in the image of your imaginary friend, why on earth would our eye be as poor as it is? The organ we have is analogous to a flat screen TV, with the power cords attached to the front of the screen. To make it worse, someone has drilled straight through the screen to feed the cables around the back of the unit.
Surely an all knowing, all powerful entity wouldn’t make a stupid and rookie mistake like this.[/quote]
That may be the stupidest counter claim in the history of counter claims…'Why do we reproduce sexually??" LOL!!!
You may be the one who needs the help. Your claiming some authoritative knowledge on something you clearly know nothing about. I am not even going to bother to ask if you’ve ever read it because it’s clear you haven’t.
I still cannot get over the fact that so many atheists see fit to comment on a book they never read. That flat cracks me up.
“I never read it, but I know it’s wrong, cause like, it just is man. I smoked some pot and it just came to me.”
You better come with some real arguments that have some basis in fact or your going to get blistered. It’s not wise to bring a knife to a gun fight. It’s not wise to approach a topic you have no knowledge of with people who do have knowledge of it.
What’s next, you going to argue with a quantum physicist about the stupidity of the theory of general relativity? You might as well. First, when you do, call them stupid and retarded and in need of psychological help.
So, other than the fact we can prove that the earth is ca. 4.5 billion years old, you still think that a book written around 2000 years ago is relevant?
[/quote]
It’s about 4000 years old, but who’s splitting hairs. It’s absolutely still relevant. You treating it like a science book is the silly part. You claiming that a book who changed the world and is still the most popular book in the world as irrelevant is flat laughable.
So when you have nothing quality to say, resort to insults and belittling. That surely helps your claim.
[quote]
If we, as you claim are created in god’s image, why would we reproduce sexually? Doesn’t make much sense for an entity like the farce that you describe to require sexual reproduction, it entails a second entity, at least as powerful as the first required for “godly” reproduction. It also shits on your theory of there only being one god. In addition, if we’re made in the image of your imaginary friend, why on earth would our eye be as poor as it is? The organ we have is analogous to a flat screen TV, with the power cords attached to the front of the screen. To make it worse, someone has drilled straight through the screen to feed the cables around the back of the unit.
Surely an all knowing, all powerful entity wouldn’t make a stupid and rookie mistake like this.[/quote]
That may be the stupidest counter claim in the history of counter claims…'Why do we reproduce sexually??" LOL!!!
You may be the one who needs the help. Your claiming some authoritative knowledge on something you clearly know nothing about. I am not even going to bother to ask if you’ve ever read it because it’s clear you haven’t.
I still cannot get over the fact that so many atheists see fit to comment on a book they never read. That flat cracks me up.
“I never read it, but I know it’s wrong, cause like, it just is man. I smoked some pot and it just came to me.”
You better come with some real arguments that have some basis in fact or your going to get blistered. It’s not wise to bring a knife to a gun fight. It’s not wise to approach a topic you have no knowledge of with people who do have knowledge of it.
What’s next, you going to argue with a quantum physicist about the stupidity of the theory of general relativity? You might as well. First, when you do, call them stupid and retarded and in need of psychological help.[/quote]
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. 4000 years. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Young earther BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAYHA.
The thing that destroys your argument is… DINOSAURS. And the fact that we’ve found homo erectus fossils that are at least 40,000 years old. SO, because you’ve clearly failed maths, and are now arguing about how you know your imaginary friend did it all, I would suggest that fictional books are not the greatest place to base an argument on.
GO back to bed peon, this argument is well beyond your intellectual capacity.
So, other than the fact we can prove that the earth is ca. 4.5 billion years old, you still think that a book written around 2000 years ago is relevant?
[/quote]
It’s about 4000 years old, but who’s splitting hairs. It’s absolutely still relevant. You treating it like a science book is the silly part. You claiming that a book who changed the world and is still the most popular book in the world as irrelevant is flat laughable.
So when you have nothing quality to say, resort to insults and belittling. That surely helps your claim.
Pat was speaking about the book. Not the Earth.
But this is apparently well beyond your reading capacity.
So, other than the fact we can prove that the earth is ca. 4.5 billion years old, you still think that a book written around 2000 years ago is relevant?
[/quote]
It’s about 4000 years old, but who’s splitting hairs. It’s absolutely still relevant. You treating it like a science book is the silly part. You claiming that a book who changed the world and is still the most popular book in the world as irrelevant is flat laughable.
So when you have nothing quality to say, resort to insults and belittling. That surely helps your claim.
Pat was speaking about the book. Not the Earth.
But this is apparently well beyond your reading capacity. [/quote]
When the topic was the age of the earth, it makes little sense to make such claims. Secondly, The bible that you christians are talking about is the one that your fanciful nonsense is based - the new testament, was written after the alleged birth/disappearance/death of your fool martyr, around 2013 years ago.
Thirdly, even if your book is 4000 years ago, it does not really change the point. 4.5 billion years, and your imaginary friend only does something in the last 2/4000?
Laughably pathetic is the idea of the abrahamic god, just like all gods before. The god argument is a poor way of explaining the observed events, though it is quite informative of our species’ abject fear of the unknown, and the need we appear to have to explain things, no matter how poor the explanation.
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Pat was speaking about the book. Not the Earth.
But this is apparently well beyond your reading capacity. [/quote] Can you imagine this kid in a philosophical debate?
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Pat was speaking about the book. Not the Earth.
But this is apparently well beyond your reading capacity. [/quote] Can you imagine this kid in a philosophical debate? [/quote]
Kid. Lol.
The patronising only serves to make you look far more petty and scared than your belief in sky fairies.
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Pat was speaking about the book. Not the Earth.
But this is apparently well beyond your reading capacity. [/quote] Can you imagine this kid in a philosophical debate? [/quote]
Kid. Lol.
The patronising only serves to make you look far more petty and scared than your belief in sky fairies.[/quote]I’m trying to assume an excuse for you.
Ok. I will try to answer in a way that you will hopefully be able to manage.
Note : The text in the “grey boxes” are quotes of things you said.
You yourself spoke about “a book written 2000 years ago”.
pat quoted that and answered it.
-i’m not a christian
-In a christian perspective, the New Testament is not a Bible, but a part of the Bible.
Pat isn’t a young earth creationist. You’re wasting your time here. And ours.
God is not meant to be “a way of explaining the observed events”.
Religion is not Science.
If you want to argue against something, try to understand it, without reducing it to what you think or want it to be.
Yep. This is why i’m still waiting to see all the “professional helpers” you keep speaking about.
You know, the ones who cure religion.
[quote]
There is no evidence of your god, anywhere, other than dumb people saying I believe.[/quote]
Ok. Now prove that evidence is the only criterium of truth.
