Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]pat wrote:

[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. :wink:

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 :slight_smile:

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.[/quote]

How can they depend on something else if they’ve always existed? Logically, it’s impossible.

242

Pat - if the bible might be full of historical inaccuracies, and God may or may not have spoken directly to the founders of Christianity, what makes Catholicism the best way to communicate with the almighty? If “God” and “Allah” are in fact the same thing, why one over the other?

243

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - if the bible might be full of historical inaccuracies, and God may or may not have spoken directly to the founders of Christianity, what makes Catholicism the best way to communicate with the almighty? If “God” and “Allah” are in fact the same thing, why one over the other?[/quote]

That is an excellent question. So give me a little time to do it justice.

There is no might. There are some historical inaccuracies in the bible; there are also some historical accuracies in the bible. It depends on where and what the part your talking about, who it was written by, for and the particular books purpose. You have the law books, the historical books, you have poetry that has some prophesy, strictly prophesy, gospels, and epistles.

Where you are going to find the most accurate historical information is in the historical books and the epistles. Now the historical books aren’t perfect in terms of precision they are more or less correct. Keep in mind these are thousands of years old and are renderings of oral traditions. .
The items of history in the epistles that show up in the epistles are probably the most accurate as they are describing current events of the time.

The gospels oldest gospel (Mark) was written about 47 - 51 years after the death of Christ and most of the folks who knew Jesus personally were croaking off. So they we definitely trying to get info down before they were all gone. So they fall into the category of being more or less correct in terms of precision. Now the events of the gospels are accurate events, the precise timeline may be suspect, but it also depends on whether the author is using the Jewish vs. Roman calendar, or mixing the two and who they got their info from. The Gospel of John is the only one thought to be written by an actual apostle or dictated closely by John (the only non-martyred apostle, btw). However, some of the events seem to be out of order and it could be the result of irresponsibly handling, which seemed to be a problem. There seems to be pages missing from Mark as well. Mark is thought to have been sourced to Peter, either by scribes close to him that assembled his various tellings or flat dictated. From the gospels, general timeline is really good enough, it’s Jesus’s morality, teaching and stuff he did are what’s important.

The epistles give instruction on faith and morality and how to live in the â??New Covenenant’. The historic events that occur in there tend to be current events and therefore are likely to be the most accurate, but there isn’t that much history, that’s not the point.

Going back to OT, in the beginning you have the story of a people and where they came from. Then you have the law. Then you have the history of the people, then you have the poets and prophetsâ?¦In the history parts, as stated before is going to be more or less correct in terms of pin point accuracy. The law books I have no doubt that the authors took some liberties to give it a little extra oomph. But they do contain some historical facts, but their purpose was to lay down the law. As far as the prophets were concern, were they right, well they predicted the coming of Jesus and that the Jews would lose and get back their land. Both things happened so judge for your self.

So that’s the bible. But why Cathlocism? Well, if you believe Jesus is the Son of God, and you want to be apart of the church he set up, it’s what became Catholicism. You can start from any ordained priest or bishop and follow the chain of ordination all the way back to the apostles and Peter which can be traced to Matthew 16:18 which states the following: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Now the protestants complain a lot about the placement of that comma. Trying to state that Jesus was referring to himself as the rock he called himself the â??corner stone’ , but â??Peter’ means: â??Petros (“stone”), which is related to petra (“rock”). So it’s a stretch to say that Jesus meant something else. That’s a lot of pressure to put on one little tiny comma. Bottom line, the original Christian Church was what we now call the Roman Catholic Church. Early on, the orthodox traditions broke off because of politics and haggling, but maintained the apostolic tradition and there roots also trace directly to the apostles too. The protestant came 1500 years later and broke with apostolic tradition, removed books from the bible and changed ultimately what it meant to be faithful. Martin Luther was fighting corruption at the time and the church nor I condemn him for it. He was kicked out and he should not have been. Now some other â??reformists’ tried to take things in different directions that Martin Luther for who knows why.

To sum it up, why Catholic? Because it was the first and Jesus established it in scripture. Everything else was done by men. The only protestant tradition that claims divine inspiration is Mormonismâ?¦.If you want to be faithful, why not be the one that can trace it’s roots directly to biblical times? It’s a matter of history and fact.

BTW, I hope your not taking this as me trying to convert you, I just wanted to thoroghly answer your question…You do what ever you want.

244

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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. :wink:

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 :slight_smile:

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.[/quote]

How can they depend on something else if they’ve always existed? Logically, it’s impossible.
[/quote]

What does matter and energy ‘follow’?

245

[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.
[/quote]

Yes. I’m sure there would be at least one that G-d would have mercy on.

Yes, stuff happens. Just like if you go to any corner in the world you’ll get a range of idiotic to good answers. I’m not a hypocrite because I’m Catholic, I’m Catholic because I’m a hypocrite. No one is perfect.

Never said that, just said your doctrines are strange and sometimes unwarranted as well as unjust.

246

[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. :wink:

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]

But matter and energy are linked directly with time and space.

247

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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 :slight_smile: 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. [/quote]

Precisely how is it faulty?
And no battle lines have been drawn, we’re merely having a discussion. If I made a straw man, please point it out to me.

248

[quote]pat wrote:
What does matter and energy ‘follow’?[/quote]

If matter and energy are in a timeless state, they don’t follow anything. Following requires time.

You can’t talk about creation, causes, and effects from a timeless perspective. I know it’s hard to wrap your brain around, but time and causality are very different from what we observe in our narrow scope of reality. Given your study of quantum physics and relativity, I’m betting you would agree with this.

249

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What does matter and energy ‘follow’?[/quote]

If matter and energy are in a timeless state, they don’t follow anything. Following requires time.

You can’t talk about creation, causes, and effects from a timeless perspective. I know it’s hard to wrap your brain around, but time and causality are very different from what we observe in our narrow scope of reality. Given your study of quantum physics and relativity, I’m betting you would agree with this.
[/quote]

What about natural laws? I have been trying to exclude time from the conversation for a long time now. Time is irrelevant. Causes do not need to precede the resultant effect. What is important is that the cause necessitates it’s resultant effect.
Besides if you believe String Theory, matter is basically an illusion, it’s all energy in various states at different frequencies. Causal theory actually likes string theory, as it tends to come damn close to breaking the bonds between the physical and non physical world.

250

Chris, do you believe it’s possible for a son to be older than his father?

251

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - if the bible might be full of historical inaccuracies, and God may or may not have spoken directly to the founders of Christianity, what makes Catholicism the best way to communicate with the almighty? If “God” and “Allah” are in fact the same thing, why one over the other?[/quote]

Simple answer - Jesus (God incarnate) was a Hellenistic Jew, he wanted to spread Judaism which was given directly to the Jewish Fathers (Adam, Abraham, Moses, &c)…others not so much, these other Jews retained the name Jew and the Hellenistic Jews were called Christians (this started early I suppose) or little Christs or messiah. Christians were in the Catholic Church, after the reformation Protestants started exclusively referring to us as Catholics or Papists. But the Catholic Church is still the original Church.

252

[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]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. :wink:

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]

But matter and energy are linked directly with time and space.[/quote]
Time and space are a function of matter / energy.

253

[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, do you believe it’s possible for a son to be older than his father?[/quote]

Ha, trick question. My uncle’s father is younger than him, but his father is his son and priest. But biologically, no.

254

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What does matter and energy ‘follow’?[/quote]

If matter and energy are in a timeless state, they don’t follow anything. Following requires time.

You can’t talk about creation, causes, and effects from a timeless perspective. I know it’s hard to wrap your brain around, but time and causality are very different from what we observe in our narrow scope of reality. Given your study of quantum physics and relativity, I’m betting you would agree with this.
[/quote]

What about natural laws? I have been trying to exclude time from the conversation for a long time now. Time is irrelevant. Causes do not need to precede the resultant effect. What is important is that the cause necessitates it’s resultant effect.
Besides if you believe String Theory, matter is basically an illusion, it’s all energy in various states at different frequencies. Causal theory actually likes string theory, as it tends to come damn close to breaking the bonds between the physical and non physical world.[/quote]

How is it possible for a cause to occur after its effect?

255

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, do you believe it’s possible for a son to be older than his father?[/quote]

Ha, trick question. My uncle’s father is younger than him, but his father is his son and priest. But biologically, no.[/quote]

What if Einstein told you that biologically, it actually was possible?

256

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, do you believe it’s possible for a son to be older than his father?[/quote]

Ha, trick question. My uncle’s father is younger than him, but his father is his son and priest. But biologically, no.[/quote]

What if Einstein told you that biologically, it actually was possible?[/quote]

I’d buy him a drink, because I thought he was dead and obviously he’s way passed being lucid.

257

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, do you believe it’s possible for a son to be older than his father?[/quote]

Ha, trick question. My uncle’s father is younger than him, but his father is his son and priest. But biologically, no.[/quote]

What if Einstein told you that biologically, it actually was possible?[/quote]

I’d buy him a drink, because I thought he was dead and obviously he’s way passed being lucid.[/quote]

Ha. Well you get my point. According to the theory of relativity, it actually is possible for the biological father to be younger than his son.

Which is why I don’t buy these reductionist arguments that attempt to prove there must be a god. We don’t live in Newton’s narrow universe any more. There doesn’t have to be an ultimate cause with a linear string of effects. Einstein proved how very little we actually know about how the universe works.

258

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What does matter and energy ‘follow’?[/quote]

If matter and energy are in a timeless state, they don’t follow anything. Following requires time.

You can’t talk about creation, causes, and effects from a timeless perspective. I know it’s hard to wrap your brain around, but time and causality are very different from what we observe in our narrow scope of reality. Given your study of quantum physics and relativity, I’m betting you would agree with this.
[/quote]

No they don’t they make time not bound by it, like I just said to Chris, time and space is a function of matter and energy.

259

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What does matter and energy ‘follow’?[/quote]

If matter and energy are in a timeless state, they don’t follow anything. Following requires time.

You can’t talk about creation, causes, and effects from a timeless perspective. I know it’s hard to wrap your brain around, but time and causality are very different from what we observe in our narrow scope of reality. Given your study of quantum physics and relativity, I’m betting you would agree with this.
[/quote]

What about natural laws? I have been trying to exclude time from the conversation for a long time now. Time is irrelevant. Causes do not need to precede the resultant effect. What is important is that the cause necessitates it’s resultant effect.
Besides if you believe String Theory, matter is basically an illusion, it’s all energy in various states at different frequencies. Causal theory actually likes string theory, as it tends to come damn close to breaking the bonds between the physical and non physical world.[/quote]

How is it possible for a cause to occur after its effect? [/quote]

Some have argued reverse causation.

260

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, do you believe it’s possible for a son to be older than his father?[/quote]

Ha, trick question. My uncle’s father is younger than him, but his father is his son and priest. But biologically, no.[/quote]

What if Einstein told you that biologically, it actually was possible?[/quote]

I’d buy him a drink, because I thought he was dead and obviously he’s way passed being lucid.[/quote]

Ha. Well you get my point. According to the theory of relativity, it actually is possible for the biological father to be younger than his son.

Which is why I don’t buy these reductionist arguments that attempt to prove there must be a god. We don’t live in Newton’s narrow universe any more. There doesn’t have to be an ultimate cause with a linear string of effects. Einstein proved how very little we actually know about how the universe works.[/quote]

It doesn’t have to be linear, it just must be causal. It doesn’t matter if you buy it or not. You gotta disprove it.