Bible Contradictions 2.0

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

jakerz96 wrote:<<< I said almost exactly this with quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you liked it remember. The above does not lead to divine monergism as you say. It is in fact Catholicism plain and true. We are participants and thus something is required of us to participate.[/quote]Do you or do you not maintain your right standing before God by meritorious woks? [quote]Brother Chris wrote last month:<<< However, if the Good Thief had lived he would have continued to merit his salvation through works >>>

[/quote]

“by the grace of God.” Every time a Catholic says anything about works or faith, just put the quote somewhere in his sentence when you read it. We have a different view of our relationship (I am presuming) so every time we say, faith and works it is presumed to be accompanied by “by the grace of God.” Everything is by the grace of God. We are alive because of the grace of God. But it gets tiring writing by the grace of God, and we figure people understand what we’re talking about. However, we still have the free will to make the choice to do those works (which I presume you do not believe), but our strength comes by the grace of God. I’m going to put “by the grace of God” in everything from now on and it will be a lot and repetitive.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Yes, there is division, >>>[/quote]Oh indeed there is and not just among the uncatechized laity. I know you know that too. I’m not even faulting Rome for that. It’s impossible that it could be otherwise in this life even if she WERE the one true most holy apostolic church. The trouble I have is with this demonstrably false claim of universal oneness.

Lemme me ask you this. Are there any people of the over one billion Catholics in this world who would go to hell if they either died this minute or if Jesus returned right now? I already know the answer to this because you’ve said, but are there any non Catholics who would go to heaven? I’m simply asking honest questions.

Also, to be clear, I have maybe 150 posts or something in those Catholic forums and there was exactly one where I even mentioned your church, though that one was not flattering. I did not go there on the attack. That is your house and it would not speak well of the gospel I preach if I showed up there blasting Rome. I went there looking for info and got drawn in by the story of a man calling himself Tucdoc who’s family was/is being ripped apart (long story, you can find it if you look). He has gotten advice that ranged from utterly useless to flat down unholy and idiotic from his alleged brethren over there. (Some pretty good too)

He’s another one. I have cried out to the Lord on behalf of this man and his family until it hurt. You guys think us Westminster folks are hard hearted monsters. You couldn’t possibly be more wrong.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you can’t logically argue that everything must be caused on one hand, only to violate that very principle by stating that an uncaused cause exists. The very idea of an uncaused cause contradicts the argument that everything has a cause. Therefore, it is a logically false argument.

Now, if you want to argue that almost everything has a cause that’s fine. But then you must admit that you don’t know what has a cause and what doesn’t. As I’ve argued, it’s perfectly possible that matter and energy have always existed. You can’t prove they have a cause. In fact, the idea that something can be created out of nothing violates everything we know about the laws of conservation.[/quote]

We’re going in circles. I can logically argue the case of the Uncaused-causer because it must necessarily be true for the argument to work. If you look at the function of regression, you either end up with something or nothing, nothing violates logic, infinite regress is fallacious, there is one one answer. It’s very much like algebra in the sense that you may have unknown variables, but the answer is still true. for instance:
(w + 6)3 = 3w + 18 ← We don’t what what ‘w’ is, but this answer is correct and true.

I would argue that while it may appear to violate what we know about the laws of conservation, we don’t actually know everything about conservation.[/quote]

But Pat, your uncaused cause violates logic because it has no cause itself. Your uncaused cause is fallacious because it requires an infinite regress. You’re claiming this uncaused cause had no beginning, but insist it’s impossible for matter and energy to have had no beginning. I’m just asking for the same logical standards to be applied, whether talking about god or about matter and energy. You can’t insist matter and energy had a beginning, while claiming god had no beginning. If one theory is possible, so is the other.[/quote]

Casual relationships with infinite regression begs the question, but what moved that? Something would have to be the first mover that itself didn’t need to be moved.[/quote]

Why couldn’t that something be matter and energy?[/quote]
Can you make an argument for matter /energy being both causal and uncaused? [/quote]

Sure, but my position doesn’t require that to be true.

For example, what if some matter and energy exist in a timeless state? We’ve already talked about how that may be the case for light. And what if some matter and energy are time bound? You therefore have matter and energy that is both caused and uncaused. I wonder if it’s possible to move from one state to the other. If you accelerate matter enough, would it enter a timeless state?[/quote]

Time is a function of matter and energy, but matter and energy are governed by laws and necessarily bound to them. Therefore, already the dependency removes it’s ability to ‘uncaused’. With out the laws and principles M & E function by, they cease being M & E.

I am probably wasting my time, but it’s all in here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
[/quote]

You’ve said several times that you believe natural laws can change, or that they can operate differently under different conditions. For example, you support the laws of conservation, but believe that matter and energy can be created from nothing, or can be destroyed in black holes. You don’t believe these laws are the same in a timeless condition than in a timebound condition. Given that, why not acknowledge the possibility that matter and energy can exist independently of time?

Didn’t you say a while back that you believe light exists independently of time? Therefore, it’s certainly possible that energy has always existed, and energy is just a different form of matter.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you can’t logically argue that everything must be caused on one hand, only to violate that very principle by stating that an uncaused cause exists. The very idea of an uncaused cause contradicts the argument that everything has a cause. Therefore, it is a logically false argument.

Now, if you want to argue that almost everything has a cause that’s fine. But then you must admit that you don’t know what has a cause and what doesn’t. As I’ve argued, it’s perfectly possible that matter and energy have always existed. You can’t prove they have a cause. In fact, the idea that something can be created out of nothing violates everything we know about the laws of conservation.[/quote]

We’re going in circles. I can logically argue the case of the Uncaused-causer because it must necessarily be true for the argument to work. If you look at the function of regression, you either end up with something or nothing, nothing violates logic, infinite regress is fallacious, there is one one answer. It’s very much like algebra in the sense that you may have unknown variables, but the answer is still true. for instance:
(w + 6)3 = 3w + 18 ← We don’t what what ‘w’ is, but this answer is correct and true.

I would argue that while it may appear to violate what we know about the laws of conservation, we don’t actually know everything about conservation.[/quote]

But Pat, your uncaused cause violates logic because it has no cause itself. Your uncaused cause is fallacious because it requires an infinite regress. You’re claiming this uncaused cause had no beginning, but insist it’s impossible for matter and energy to have had no beginning. I’m just asking for the same logical standards to be applied, whether talking about god or about matter and energy. You can’t insist matter and energy had a beginning, while claiming god had no beginning. If one theory is possible, so is the other.[/quote]

Casual relationships with infinite regression begs the question, but what moved that? Something would have to be the first mover that itself didn’t need to be moved.[/quote]

Why couldn’t that something be matter and energy?[/quote]

Perhaps it is, but have you seen matter move on it’s own power without something else moving it?[/quote]

Yes, I saw the sun rise this morning based on nothing more than natural laws… Again, the natural laws of the universe don’t require intelligence or intent to move matter.[/quote]

Natural laws? Didn’t know the sun was moved by moral laws.

I presume you mean laws of nature, well that begs the question what moves laws of nature? Something still tends to stay still.[/quote]

Where’d the laws come from and what drives them? I am insufferable.[/quote]

Not insufferable at all, you’re just a truth seeker like me

I would argue that the laws of nature have always existed, since nature has always existed. If you have matter and energy, that matter and energy has qualities, and our description of those qualities is what we call the laws of nature.
[/quote]

Correct, but that does not remove their contingency. If you pull apart the laws, they cease being the same law. The laws are based on something…
All metaphysical obejects are eternal. They never change and they never age or move.[/quote]

Or, they reflect an underlying universal law that acts differently depending on the circumstances, like the general theory of relativity. Why don’t quantum mechanics operate at our level of granularity? It’s not like quantum laws cease to operate, but they only observably apply in certain extreme conditions.

That doesn’t mean these laws don’t exist, nor does it imply any actual intelligence or intent. Gravity isn’t intelligent; it’s simply an expression of how objects naturally interact with one another.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey Trib why do you waste your time with that scum? You know his past, how he lives, what he truly believes in. None of it is good. He’s only on these religious threads to tear down God, the Bible and most everything that is good.

Matthew 7:6 “…Do not throw your pearls to pigs…”[/quote]

Look, kids…it’s Zeb the clown!

queue circus music[/quote]

Gee, I didn’t mention your name forlife…feeling guilty about something? Or does the truth hurt so badly that you just want to lash out at people?

I understand, doing the work of your father can be stressful.
[/quote]

Damn it people, let’s argue points and not personal attacks. We were doing so good. Kiss and make up…
[/quote]

You know me well enough to realize I’m not into personal attacks. There is only a very small number of people that I truly don’t respect or take seriously on this site, and Zeb is one of them.

Enough said, let’s get back to the discussion

[jakerz96]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

jakerz96 wrote:<<< I said almost exactly this with quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you liked it remember. The above does not lead to divine monergism as you say. It is in fact Catholicism plain and true. We are participants and thus something is required of us to participate.[/quote]Do you or do you not maintain your right standing before God by meritorious woks? [quote]Brother Chris wrote last month:<<< However, if the Good Thief had lived he would have continued to merit his salvation through works >>>

[/quote]

[quote] jakerz96 wrote: Just for some clarity for you Tiribulus, because this is an oft misunderstood area of Catholic teaching. On the subject of “merit” I’ll give you a few quotes from the Catholic Catechism, which I imagine you’ve read, but perhaps haven’t ruminated on.

[quote]CC:
With regard to God there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man.

The merits of our works are gifts of the divine goodness. Grace has gone before us, now we are given what is due… our merits are God’s gifts.

Man’s merit, moreover itself is due to God…

Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification.

The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God.[/quote]

So, in effect what we espouse is not so very different from what you do. We just package it and approach from a different angle than you. You said there is no such thing as a faith that isn’t alive/doesn’t have works and we say the same thing when we say faith requires works. We go further to say that these works are part of our salvation and that they are part of our meriting salvation, but if you look at the above we in effect merit nothing, but rather God gives us Christ’s merit by making us part of Him through the action of grace. You on the other say that you know your faith is real by the outward change it forges in you. It is almost like a chicken and egg sort of thing.

Think about it though… God moves us to turn to Him. We do and then He gives us grace to believe/have faith and do His works, which are our participation in the divine life, but are His free gifts.

[/quote]
I think what I previously wrote/quoted answers this one for all Catholics.

[forlife]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Jeremiah 5:

[quote]2 Although they say, “As surely as the LORD lives,”
still they are swearing falsely.[/quote][/quote]Thank you so much for more of your penetrating and reverent biblical exposition. I’ll give ya hint. That isn’t the only place the phrase occurs.
[/quote]

And I’ll give you a hint: it is a sin to take the name of the Lord in vain, and a heresy to teach falsehoods that directly contradict everything Jesus taught and died for. You are a classic example of the wolf in sheep’s clothing that the prophets warned would try to deceive the very elect. Calvin was a charlatan, and you follow him at your own peril.[/quote]What on earth could I possibly have been thinking? All that prayer and all that study when all I needed to do was ask a loud public denier of Christ. Thanks =]
[/quote]

I’ve said several times that I deeply believe in Christ’s message of love. My problem with your philosophy is that it is the opposite of love. You denigrate people to the point of considering them less than the dung on your feet, and you deny people even the possibility of free will. In your mind, we are all nothing more than puppets in the truest sense of the word. If there were a Satan, I imagine he’d be thrilled at such a philosophy, which is the opposite of everything Jesus taught.

[forlife]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you can’t logically argue that everything must be caused on one hand, only to violate that very principle by stating that an uncaused cause exists. The very idea of an uncaused cause contradicts the argument that everything has a cause. Therefore, it is a logically false argument.

Now, if you want to argue that almost everything has a cause that’s fine. But then you must admit that you don’t know what has a cause and what doesn’t. As I’ve argued, it’s perfectly possible that matter and energy have always existed. You can’t prove they have a cause. In fact, the idea that something can be created out of nothing violates everything we know about the laws of conservation.[/quote]

We’re going in circles. I can logically argue the case of the Uncaused-causer because it must necessarily be true for the argument to work. If you look at the function of regression, you either end up with something or nothing, nothing violates logic, infinite regress is fallacious, there is one one answer. It’s very much like algebra in the sense that you may have unknown variables, but the answer is still true. for instance:
(w + 6)3 = 3w + 18 ← We don’t what what ‘w’ is, but this answer is correct and true.

I would argue that while it may appear to violate what we know about the laws of conservation, we don’t actually know everything about conservation.[/quote]

But Pat, your uncaused cause violates logic because it has no cause itself. Your uncaused cause is fallacious because it requires an infinite regress. You’re claiming this uncaused cause had no beginning, but insist it’s impossible for matter and energy to have had no beginning. I’m just asking for the same logical standards to be applied, whether talking about god or about matter and energy. You can’t insist matter and energy had a beginning, while claiming god had no beginning. If one theory is possible, so is the other.[/quote]

Casual relationships with infinite regression begs the question, but what moved that? Something would have to be the first mover that itself didn’t need to be moved.[/quote]

Why couldn’t that something be matter and energy?[/quote]

Perhaps it is, but have you seen matter move on it’s own power without something else moving it?[/quote]

Yes, I saw the sun rise this morning based on nothing more than natural laws… Again, the natural laws of the universe don’t require intelligence or intent to move matter.[/quote]

Natural laws? Didn’t know the sun was moved by moral laws.

I presume you mean laws of nature, well that begs the question what moves laws of nature? Something still tends to stay still.[/quote]

Laws of nature = Natural laws

I’m not sure what you mean. How could the laws of gravity, conservation, etc. be “moved”? They’re simply a description of the way the universe works.
[/quote]

Well what caused them? What made them so that is what they did?

And, what I was ribbing you for is because of this Natural Law: Natural law - Wikipedia [/quote]

You’re artificially restricting the possible answers by asking this question. If matter and energy have always existed, then their nature has always existed. Laws are nothing more than a description of this nature. It’s impossible for anything to be caused if it exists in a timeless state.

[jakerz96]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Lemme me ask you this. Are there any people of the over one billion Catholics in this world who would go to hell if they either died this minute or if Jesus returned right now? I already know the answer to this because you’ve said, but are there any non Catholics who would go to heaven? I’m simply asking honest questions.

He’s another one. I have cried out to the Lord on behalf of this man and his family until it hurt. You guys think us Westminster folks are hard hearted monsters. You couldn’t possibly be more wrong.
[/quote]
I know I’m answering someone elses question, but this one cried out to me.

It is certainly possible that some Catholics might not be saved if they died right now or if Jesus returned right now, but I don’t know the state of souls. As far as non-Catholics going to heaven. It is certainly possible that there will be some, but I don’t begin to know how God might make this choice.

Oh man that last part about thinking Westminster folks are hard hearted monsters… Ha, I’ve never thought that. Misguided monsters maybe (jk). No, seriously though, only misguided. I know you don’t like the term/idea, but I think separated brethren is quite right from our end.

[pat]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< You did it in these three threads many times just to name a few: >>>[/quote]Where are the quotes of me saying that I am pronouncing final judgement on you, Chris or all Catholics? You say I’ve constantly said this. Should be no trouble finding one example. Go ahead.
For now, I said to Chris on 11-18-10[quote]For the record, nobody goes to hell because they’re catholic. They go to hell because they’re not saved. There are people in my church who will go to hell.[/quote]http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/guaranteed_cure_for_racism?pageNo=19 Once again. What does this, that I said last night mean?:

While yet on this earth one can be certain of the election of no other person than themselves. One can be no more certain of the NON election of another either. One can however be reasonably certain of the PRESENT state of many (1 John 3:10) by their belief and behavior. We are commanded to call sinners sinners and beckon them to repentance. We are entirely forbidden from pronouncing their eventual final state because that is the prerogative of God alone. We can tell someone that if they die as they are they are going to hell. We cannot tell them that they are going to die as they are. I would welcome my own painful death before presuming knowledge of somebody’s else’s election or no and therefore simply treat everyone as if they are.

[/quote]

You know just as well as I do that it is difficult to navigate through 1100 posts per thread. But I do remember the one in particular off the top of my head, “If any Catholic goes to heaver, it is only by the extreme mercy of God” ← Are you going to deny you said that? Are you going to deny you’ve told forlife he’s on the highway to hell?

[pat]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Yes, there is division, >>>[/quote]Oh indeed there is and not just among the uncatechized laity. I know you know that too. I’m not even faulting Rome for that. It’s impossible that it could be otherwise in this life even if she WERE the one true most holy apostolic church. The trouble I have is with this demonstrably false claim of universal oneness.

Lemme me ask you this. Are there any people of the over one billion Catholics in this world who would go to hell if they either died this minute or if Jesus returned right now? I already know the answer to this because you’ve said, but are there any non Catholics who would go to heaven? I’m simply asking honest questions.

Also, to be clear, I have maybe 150 posts or something in those Catholic forums and there was exactly one where I even mentioned your church, though that one was not flattering. I did not go there on the attack. That is your house and it would not speak well of the gospel I preach if I showed up there blasting Rome. I went there looking for info and got drawn in by the story of a man calling himself Tucdoc who’s family was/is being ripped apart (long story, you can find it if you look). He has gotten advice that ranged from utterly useless to flat down unholy and idiotic from his alleged brethren over there. (Some pretty good too)

He’s another one. I have cried out to the Lord on behalf of this man and his family until it hurt. You guys think us Westminster folks are hard hearted monsters. You couldn’t possibly be more wrong.
[/quote]

Don’t ask stupid questions that have been answered. Yes, there are Catholics who will go to hell and non-catholics who will not. Each will achieve what they get through their own decisions in faith and life. Not because God already decided where they will go.

I want to know why you will not answer challenges? Scared? Don’t know the answer? We always answer yours. You always just shimmy past any challenges presented to you. Why?

[TheBodyGuard]

It’s interesting to watch you guys draw lines in the sand and argue about such things that we do not (and may never) know. We are very far from unlocking the secrets to the universe (or universes, or all of creation for that matter).

To watch you guys draw battle lines over infinite regressions, movers, causes, etc., is a fools errand and an exercise in philosophy only. And at the end of the day, you all may be arguing over nothing more than the words of man struggling to find his place in this life.

Firstly, you need to believe in “the divinely inspired word” and that God has not spoken to anyone since the bronze age and, that he never spoke prior to Judaism or Christianity. And then you need to believe that the all-powerful needs a literary agent (man) to communicate with his creation.

I don’t know the answers, but as someone not dogmatically tied to one belief or the other, I can see the forest thru the trees a bit better than some of you. I think in any search for truth, you need to abandon your preconceived notions of what you have become comfortable with and begin the journey anew, critically evaluating all claims in their entirety.

I read and consider these claims and see the hand of man at every single turn, where apparently many of you see the hand of God. Anyway, just my opinion. But the debates about the universe are clearly ridiculous. As we sit, the universe could easily be anything you can imagine. We just don’t know.

[forlife]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s interesting to watch you guys draw lines in the sand and argue about such things that we do not (and may never) know. We are very far from unlocking the secrets to the universe (or universes, or all of creation for that matter).

To watch you guys draw battle lines over infinite regressions, movers, causes, etc., is a fools errand and an exercise in philosophy only. And at the end of the day, you all may be arguing over nothing more than the words of man struggling to find his place in this life.

Firstly, you need to believe in “the divinely inspired word” and that God has not spoken to anyone since the bronze age and, that he never spoke prior to Judaism or Christianity. And then you need to believe that the all-powerful needs a literary agent (man) to communicate with his creation.

I don’t know the answers, but as someone not dogmatically tied to one belief or the other, I can see the forest thru the trees a bit better than some of you. I think in any search for truth, you need to abandon your preconceived notions of what you have become comfortable with and begin the journey anew, critically evaluating all claims in their entirety.

I read and consider these claims and see the hand of man at every single turn, where apparently many of you see the hand of God. Anyway, just my opinion. But the debates about the universe are clearly ridiculous. As we sit, the universe could easily be anything you can imagine. We just don’t know. [/quote]

I agree. What we know about the universe is a drop in the ocean of what we don’t know. Einstein’s theories turned common sense perceptions of time and causality on their head and proved what infants we are when it comes to understanding the universe.

Throughout history, our natural response has been to create supernatural explanations for what we don’t currently understand. We no longer believe Apollo pulls the sun across the sky in his chariot of fire, but we still rely on supernatural explanations to fill the gap in our ignorance.

Instead, I believe the most honest and constructive response is to admit we simply don’t know. That’s not to say we won’t continue to expand the boundaries of our knowledge over the ensuing centuries, but until we do there’s nothing wrong with admitting our ignorance. Far better that than to believe in ideas which aren’t supported by evidence.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you can’t logically argue that everything must be caused on one hand, only to violate that very principle by stating that an uncaused cause exists. The very idea of an uncaused cause contradicts the argument that everything has a cause. Therefore, it is a logically false argument.

Now, if you want to argue that almost everything has a cause that’s fine. But then you must admit that you don’t know what has a cause and what doesn’t. As I’ve argued, it’s perfectly possible that matter and energy have always existed. You can’t prove they have a cause. In fact, the idea that something can be created out of nothing violates everything we know about the laws of conservation.[/quote]

We’re going in circles. I can logically argue the case of the Uncaused-causer because it must necessarily be true for the argument to work. If you look at the function of regression, you either end up with something or nothing, nothing violates logic, infinite regress is fallacious, there is one one answer. It’s very much like algebra in the sense that you may have unknown variables, but the answer is still true. for instance:
(w + 6)3 = 3w + 18 ← We don’t what what ‘w’ is, but this answer is correct and true.

I would argue that while it may appear to violate what we know about the laws of conservation, we don’t actually know everything about conservation.[/quote]

But Pat, your uncaused cause violates logic because it has no cause itself. Your uncaused cause is fallacious because it requires an infinite regress. You’re claiming this uncaused cause had no beginning, but insist it’s impossible for matter and energy to have had no beginning. I’m just asking for the same logical standards to be applied, whether talking about god or about matter and energy. You can’t insist matter and energy had a beginning, while claiming god had no beginning. If one theory is possible, so is the other.[/quote]

Casual relationships with infinite regression begs the question, but what moved that? Something would have to be the first mover that itself didn’t need to be moved.[/quote]

Why couldn’t that something be matter and energy?[/quote]
Can you make an argument for matter /energy being both causal and uncaused? [/quote]

Sure, but my position doesn’t require that to be true.

For example, what if some matter and energy exist in a timeless state? We’ve already talked about how that may be the case for light. And what if some matter and energy are time bound? You therefore have matter and energy that is both caused and uncaused. I wonder if it’s possible to move from one state to the other. If you accelerate matter enough, would it enter a timeless state?[/quote]

Time is a function of matter and energy, but matter and energy are governed by laws and necessarily bound to them. Therefore, already the dependency removes it’s ability to ‘uncaused’. With out the laws and principles M & E function by, they cease being M & E.

I am probably wasting my time, but it’s all in here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
[/quote]

You’ve said several times that you believe natural laws can change, or that they can operate differently under different conditions. For example, you support the laws of conservation, but believe that matter and energy can be created from nothing, or can be destroyed in black holes. You don’t believe these laws are the same in a timeless condition than in a timebound condition. Given that, why not acknowledge the possibility that matter and energy can exist independently of time?

Didn’t you say a while back that you believe light exists independently of time? Therefore, it’s certainly possible that energy has always existed, and energy is just a different form of matter.[/quote]

Actually I said natural laws cannot change. If they are violated or appear to be violated it means we really don’t know enough about them or their limits. You know like (‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’). We obviously don’t know what the ‘except’ clause is.
I have also said about a trillion times that matter and energy can exist eternally and it does not matter. It does not remove contingency and dependence say from things like natural laws.
It is possible that matter and energy gets destroyed in a black hole, but lots of things are possible in a black hole, there are theories that both ‘violate’ and preserve conservation laws.

Matter and Energy are not self contained. They rely on other things for it’s existence and behavior. It doesn’t have a will to act on it’s own, it just does what it’s told.

Philosophically, it’s an interesting issue. The said Uncaused-causer ‘create’ stuff or is it an extension of himself. The latter is more logically correct and can be summed up in the saying ‘God is in the details’. But I honestly don’t know. Either way it had to be ‘willed’. Matter and energy do not have the property of will and are not self contained entities. I will spend a lot of time this summer trying to work out the nature of paradoxes and see if there is someway to solve them, with out having to solve them. The solution may be the paradox itself.
Why this summer? Because it’s to cold to sit outside and drink and smoke cigarsâ?¦.That’s a summer time thing and where I do my best thinking.

Light doesn’t exist independently of time necessarily, it ‘stops’ it, if you are the light beam. And hence mr. light-beam is not beholden by time. If you were to be able to see and atom in supersize and you suddenly took off at the speed of light, the last thing you’d see is a dead still atom.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you can’t logically argue that everything must be caused on one hand, only to violate that very principle by stating that an uncaused cause exists. The very idea of an uncaused cause contradicts the argument that everything has a cause. Therefore, it is a logically false argument.

Now, if you want to argue that almost everything has a cause that’s fine. But then you must admit that you don’t know what has a cause and what doesn’t. As I’ve argued, it’s perfectly possible that matter and energy have always existed. You can’t prove they have a cause. In fact, the idea that something can be created out of nothing violates everything we know about the laws of conservation.[/quote]

We’re going in circles. I can logically argue the case of the Uncaused-causer because it must necessarily be true for the argument to work. If you look at the function of regression, you either end up with something or nothing, nothing violates logic, infinite regress is fallacious, there is one one answer. It’s very much like algebra in the sense that you may have unknown variables, but the answer is still true. for instance:
(w + 6)3 = 3w + 18 ← We don’t what what ‘w’ is, but this answer is correct and true.

I would argue that while it may appear to violate what we know about the laws of conservation, we don’t actually know everything about conservation.[/quote]

But Pat, your uncaused cause violates logic because it has no cause itself. Your uncaused cause is fallacious because it requires an infinite regress. You’re claiming this uncaused cause had no beginning, but insist it’s impossible for matter and energy to have had no beginning. I’m just asking for the same logical standards to be applied, whether talking about god or about matter and energy. You can’t insist matter and energy had a beginning, while claiming god had no beginning. If one theory is possible, so is the other.[/quote]

Casual relationships with infinite regression begs the question, but what moved that? Something would have to be the first mover that itself didn’t need to be moved.[/quote]

Why couldn’t that something be matter and energy?[/quote]

Perhaps it is, but have you seen matter move on it’s own power without something else moving it?[/quote]

Yes, I saw the sun rise this morning based on nothing more than natural laws… Again, the natural laws of the universe don’t require intelligence or intent to move matter.[/quote]

Natural laws? Didn’t know the sun was moved by moral laws.

I presume you mean laws of nature, well that begs the question what moves laws of nature? Something still tends to stay still.[/quote]

Where’d the laws come from and what drives them? I am insufferable.[/quote]

Not insufferable at all, you’re just a truth seeker like me

I would argue that the laws of nature have always existed, since nature has always existed. If you have matter and energy, that matter and energy has qualities, and our description of those qualities is what we call the laws of nature.
[/quote]

Correct, but that does not remove their contingency. If you pull apart the laws, they cease being the same law. The laws are based on something…
All metaphysical obejects are eternal. They never change and they never age or move.[/quote]

Or, they reflect an underlying universal law that acts differently depending on the circumstances, like the general theory of relativity. Why don’t quantum mechanics operate at our level of granularity? It’s not like quantum laws cease to operate, but they only observably apply in certain extreme conditions.

That doesn’t mean these laws don’t exist, nor does it imply any actual intelligence or intent. Gravity isn’t intelligent; it’s simply an expression of how objects naturally interact with one another.[/quote]

]Exactly, they depend on something else for that.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you can’t logically argue that everything must be caused on one hand, only to violate that very principle by stating that an uncaused cause exists. The very idea of an uncaused cause contradicts the argument that everything has a cause. Therefore, it is a logically false argument.

Now, if you want to argue that almost everything has a cause that’s fine. But then you must admit that you don’t know what has a cause and what doesn’t. As I’ve argued, it’s perfectly possible that matter and energy have always existed. You can’t prove they have a cause. In fact, the idea that something can be created out of nothing violates everything we know about the laws of conservation.[/quote]

We’re going in circles. I can logically argue the case of the Uncaused-causer because it must necessarily be true for the argument to work. If you look at the function of regression, you either end up with something or nothing, nothing violates logic, infinite regress is fallacious, there is one one answer. It’s very much like algebra in the sense that you may have unknown variables, but the answer is still true. for instance:
(w + 6)3 = 3w + 18 ← We don’t what what ‘w’ is, but this answer is correct and true.

I would argue that while it may appear to violate what we know about the laws of conservation, we don’t actually know everything about conservation.[/quote]

But Pat, your uncaused cause violates logic because it has no cause itself. Your uncaused cause is fallacious because it requires an infinite regress. You’re claiming this uncaused cause had no beginning, but insist it’s impossible for matter and energy to have had no beginning. I’m just asking for the same logical standards to be applied, whether talking about god or about matter and energy. You can’t insist matter and energy had a beginning, while claiming god had no beginning. If one theory is possible, so is the other.[/quote]

Casual relationships with infinite regression begs the question, but what moved that? Something would have to be the first mover that itself didn’t need to be moved.[/quote]

Why couldn’t that something be matter and energy?[/quote]

Perhaps it is, but have you seen matter move on it’s own power without something else moving it?[/quote]

Yes, I saw the sun rise this morning based on nothing more than natural laws… Again, the natural laws of the universe don’t require intelligence or intent to move matter.[/quote]

Natural laws? Didn’t know the sun was moved by moral laws.

I presume you mean laws of nature, well that begs the question what moves laws of nature? Something still tends to stay still.[/quote]

Laws of nature = Natural laws

I’m not sure what you mean. How could the laws of gravity, conservation, etc. be “moved”? They’re simply a description of the way the universe works.
[/quote]

Well what caused them? What made them so that is what they did?

And, what I was ribbing you for is because of this Natural Law: Natural law - Wikipedia [/quote]

You’re artificially restricting the possible answers by asking this question. If matter and energy have always existed, then their nature has always existed. Laws are nothing more than a description of this nature. It’s impossible for anything to be caused if it exists in a timeless state.
[/quote]

Which still doesn’t remove there contingency.

[pat]

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Lemme me ask you this. Are there any people of the over one billion Catholics in this world who would go to hell if they either died this minute or if Jesus returned right now? I already know the answer to this because you’ve said, but are there any non Catholics who would go to heaven? I’m simply asking honest questions.

He’s another one. I have cried out to the Lord on behalf of this man and his family until it hurt. You guys think us Westminster folks are hard hearted monsters. You couldn’t possibly be more wrong.
[/quote]
I know I’m answering someone elses question, but this one cried out to me.

It is certainly possible that some Catholics might not be saved if they died right now or if Jesus returned right now, but I don’t know the state of souls. As far as non-Catholics going to heaven. It is certainly possible that there will be some, but I don’t begin to know how God might make this choice.

Oh man that last part about thinking Westminster folks are hard hearted monsters… Ha, I’ve never thought that. Misguided monsters maybe (jk). No, seriously though, only misguided. I know you don’t like the term/idea, but I think separated brethren is quite right from our end.[/quote]

No I don’t think Wetminster puritans are hard-hearted monsters, unless they are going to bring back the Which hunts of yore.
I think the very tenet of predestination is horseshit and stand in the face of everything that Jesus was and did. If your predestined, you don’t need mercy, salvation, or anything. You will be where you will be and Jesus hanging himself on the Cross which can be filed under “works” would be beyond pointless. It also means that God made man sin and purposely put man in a state of depravity. It’s illogical garbage. It make faith pointless.

[pat]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s interesting to watch you guys draw lines in the sand and argue about such things that we do not (and may never) know. We are very far from unlocking the secrets to the universe (or universes, or all of creation for that matter).

To watch you guys draw battle lines over infinite regressions, movers, causes, etc., is a fools errand and an exercise in philosophy only. And at the end of the day, you all may be arguing over nothing more than the words of man struggling to find his place in this life.

Firstly, you need to believe in “the divinely inspired word” and that God has not spoken to anyone since the bronze age and, that he never spoke prior to Judaism or Christianity. And then you need to believe that the all-powerful needs a literary agent (man) to communicate with his creation.

I don’t know the answers, but as someone not dogmatically tied to one belief or the other, I can see the forest thru the trees a bit better than some of you. I think in any search for truth, you need to abandon your preconceived notions of what you have become comfortable with and begin the journey anew, critically evaluating all claims in their entirety.

I read and consider these claims and see the hand of man at every single turn, where apparently many of you see the hand of God. Anyway, just my opinion. But the debates about the universe are clearly ridiculous. As we sit, the universe could easily be anything you can imagine. We just don’t know. [/quote]

Are you suggesting we give up and not try? That would be a fools errand.

Philosophy is the core behind all disciplines. It all started with a philosophical question which then launched in to independent study. Further Philosophical truths if they are indeed truths cannot be violated, by anything. If they are then they the argument was flawed.

The cosmological argument form is valid and solid until proven otherwise. The guy who originally came up with it (Aristotle) was not familiar with divinely inspired doctrine which in itself is intriguing. It’s has survived unrefuted for 2 millennia, which is a pretty good track record for any argument. I don’t believe it can be though the possibility exists. But you don’t have to know everything about everything for it to be true.

I don’t know if the universe is all that exists, or if we are just a part of a plaque molecule on some giant’s tooth. Still does not invalidate philosophical cosmology.

Debate about things is a learning process. Besides a lot of really smart folk get paid a lot to learn, philosophize and theorize about the universe they don’t think it’s silly. So I don’t think it’s ridiculous at all. For me it’s fun. My son likes video games, I like this.

But to each his own. You don’t like it don’t do it…

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s interesting to watch you guys draw lines in the sand and argue about such things that we do not (and may never) know. We are very far from unlocking the secrets to the universe (or universes, or all of creation for that matter).

To watch you guys draw battle lines over infinite regressions, movers, causes, etc., is a fools errand and an exercise in philosophy only. And at the end of the day, you all may be arguing over nothing more than the words of man struggling to find his place in this life.

Firstly, you need to believe in “the divinely inspired word” and that God has not spoken to anyone since the bronze age and, that he never spoke prior to Judaism or Christianity. And then you need to believe that the all-powerful needs a literary agent (man) to communicate with his creation.

I don’t know the answers, but as someone not dogmatically tied to one belief or the other, I can see the forest thru the trees a bit better than some of you. I think in any search for truth, you need to abandon your preconceived notions of what you have become comfortable with and begin the journey anew, critically evaluating all claims in their entirety.

I read and consider these claims and see the hand of man at every single turn, where apparently many of you see the hand of God. Anyway, just my opinion. But the debates about the universe are clearly ridiculous. As we sit, the universe could easily be anything you can imagine. We just don’t know. [/quote]

Are you suggesting we give up and not try? That would be a fools errand.

Philosophy is the core behind all disciplines. It all started with a philosophical question which then launched in to independent study. Further Philosophical truths if they are indeed truths cannot be violated, by anything. If they are then they the argument was flawed.

The cosmological argument form is valid and solid until proven otherwise. The guy who originally came up with it (Aristotle) was not familiar with divinely inspired doctrine which in itself is intriguing. It’s has survived unrefuted for 2 millennia, which is a pretty good track record for any argument. I don’t believe it can be though the possibility exists. But you don’t have to know everything about everything for it to be true.

I don’t know if the universe is all that exists, or if we are just a part of a plaque molecule on some giant’s tooth. Still does not invalidate philosophical cosmology.

Debate about things is a learning process. Besides a lot of really smart folk get paid a lot to learn, philosophize and theorize about the universe they don’t think it’s silly. So I don’t think it’s ridiculous at all. For me it’s fun. My son likes video games, I like this.

But to each his own. You don’t like it don’t do it…[/quote]

You spent quite a bit of time in this thread defending your words from becoming strawmen, please do not do the same to mine buy assigning them your meaning.

When I said a fool’s errand, I did not intend to imply that such musings were not worthy pursuits, but that to draw battle lines and conclusions were.

Theories about the universe are just that - theories. I do not believe we will ever know where, when and if it started or if there is but one universe. We can’t go visit it like we can the bottom of the ocean - and even that is largely unexplored. There are things we will just never know because of the enormity of space.

The bigger philosophical questions are better served by exploring why we believe God needed a literary agent (man) to communicate his alleged message. Why did he not communicate truthfully and fully prior to the doctrines you embrace. Why is this phenomena of the “divinely inspired word” so prevalent throughout man’s history and why do factions of man rebuke the tenets of one, for their own?

I study it, consider it, subscribing to no dogma, and see the hand of man - not God. I sure hope God is hear, I hope he is with us. I don’t see him in the books you argue about. I see him in this vast unknowable universe, in nature and in the best of each of us.

My idea of a God is not a petulant jealous tyrant that caused floods and plagues. Those are qualities of man. I’m probably the worst guy to have in this thread Sorry for the intrusion. But seriously, trying to use cosmology to make religious arguments is faulty. There should be a fact in there somewhere in the foundation of your argument when you’re trying to build a case. To rely on theories that cannot be proven is building a house of cards.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you can’t logically argue that everything must be caused on one hand, only to violate that very principle by stating that an uncaused cause exists. The very idea of an uncaused cause contradicts the argument that everything has a cause. Therefore, it is a logically false argument.

Now, if you want to argue that almost everything has a cause that’s fine. But then you must admit that you don’t know what has a cause and what doesn’t. As I’ve argued, it’s perfectly possible that matter and energy have always existed. You can’t prove they have a cause. In fact, the idea that something can be created out of nothing violates everything we know about the laws of conservation.[/quote]

We’re going in circles. I can logically argue the case of the Uncaused-causer because it must necessarily be true for the argument to work. If you look at the function of regression, you either end up with something or nothing, nothing violates logic, infinite regress is fallacious, there is one one answer. It’s very much like algebra in the sense that you may have unknown variables, but the answer is still true. for instance:
(w + 6)3 = 3w + 18 ← We don’t what what ‘w’ is, but this answer is correct and true.

I would argue that while it may appear to violate what we know about the laws of conservation, we don’t actually know everything about conservation.[/quote]

But Pat, your uncaused cause violates logic because it has no cause itself. Your uncaused cause is fallacious because it requires an infinite regress. You’re claiming this uncaused cause had no beginning, but insist it’s impossible for matter and energy to have had no beginning. I’m just asking for the same logical standards to be applied, whether talking about god or about matter and energy. You can’t insist matter and energy had a beginning, while claiming god had no beginning. If one theory is possible, so is the other.[/quote]

Casual relationships with infinite regression begs the question, but what moved that? Something would have to be the first mover that itself didn’t need to be moved.[/quote]

Why couldn’t that something be matter and energy?[/quote]
Can you make an argument for matter /energy being both causal and uncaused? [/quote]

Sure, but my position doesn’t require that to be true.

For example, what if some matter and energy exist in a timeless state? We’ve already talked about how that may be the case for light. And what if some matter and energy are time bound? You therefore have matter and energy that is both caused and uncaused. I wonder if it’s possible to move from one state to the other. If you accelerate matter enough, would it enter a timeless state?[/quote]

Time is a function of matter and energy, but matter and energy are governed by laws and necessarily bound to them. Therefore, already the dependency removes it’s ability to ‘uncaused’. With out the laws and principles M & E function by, they cease being M & E.

I am probably wasting my time, but it’s all in here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
[/quote]

You’ve said several times that you believe natural laws can change, or that they can operate differently under different conditions. For example, you support the laws of conservation, but believe that matter and energy can be created from nothing, or can be destroyed in black holes. You don’t believe these laws are the same in a timeless condition than in a timebound condition. Given that, why not acknowledge the possibility that matter and energy can exist independently of time?

Didn’t you say a while back that you believe light exists independently of time? Therefore, it’s certainly possible that energy has always existed, and energy is just a different form of matter.[/quote]

Actually I said natural laws cannot change. If they are violated or appear to be violated it means we really don’t know enough about them or their limits. You know like (‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’). We obviously don’t know what the ‘except’ clause is.
I have also said about a trillion times that matter and energy can exist eternally and it does not matter. It does not remove contingency and dependence say from things like natural laws.
It is possible that matter and energy gets destroyed in a black hole, but lots of things are possible in a black hole, there are theories that both ‘violate’ and preserve conservation laws.

Matter and Energy are not self contained. They rely on other things for it’s existence and behavior. It doesn’t have a will to act on it’s own, it just does what it’s told.

Philosophically, it’s an interesting issue. The said Uncaused-causer ‘create’ stuff or is it an extension of himself. The latter is more logically correct and can be summed up in the saying ‘God is in the details’. But I honestly don’t know. Either way it had to be ‘willed’. Matter and energy do not have the property of will and are not self contained entities. I will spend a lot of time this summer trying to work out the nature of paradoxes and see if there is someway to solve them, with out having to solve them. The solution may be the paradox itself.
Why this summer? Because it’s to cold to sit outside and drink and smoke cigarsâ?¦.That’s a summer time thing and where I do my best thinking.

Light doesn’t exist independently of time necessarily, it ‘stops’ it, if you are the light beam. And hence mr. light-beam is not beholden by time. If you were to be able to see and atom in supersize and you suddenly took off at the speed of light, the last thing you’d see is a dead still atom.
[/quote]

If you agree it’s possible matter and energy have existed forever, how is it possible for matter and energy to rely on something else to exist? Timelessness removes the possibility of contingency. Think about it. If something exists outside of time, how could it possibly be preceded by something which created it? It couldn’t have been created, because it has always existed.