[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Zeal without knowledge, >>>[/quote]Read the 10th of Romans starting right at verse one. I think I’m gonna take the night off.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s called devotion. How exactly is it ‘zeal with out knowledge’? Hmmm. This is very arrogant of you. You really need to stop that crap if you want to make an impact. Calling the church a ‘whore’ is not going to change any minds, that’s for sure. We ask you for your knowledge, you just ignore it and switch gears…That’s either weakness, or a lack of knowledge.
I for one am not to good to repeat answers already given if it helps get the point across. You should take a debate class or something. If your faith is superior prove it, belittling our faith doesn’t prove anything. It’s just a random ad hominem.[/quote]
You “yelling” the loudest and acting like an angry little man is not going to “change any minds, that’s for sure” - or, win any new converts.[/quote]
PROVE ME WRONG, big man…Should be simple right? I don’t know what I am talking about right? Go nuts, prove me wrong. Attacking me doesn’t refute anything.[/quote]
Patience, Pat. You know this guy is prone to show up every now and then, make some posts, and then disappear. No point in lowering to his level. You know we always have your back except in a UT vs. UGA game.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s called devotion. How exactly is it ‘zeal with out knowledge’? Hmmm. This is very arrogant of you. You really need to stop that crap if you want to make an impact. Calling the church a ‘whore’ is not going to change any minds, that’s for sure. We ask you for your knowledge, you just ignore it and switch gears…That’s either weakness, or a lack of knowledge.
I for one am not to good to repeat answers already given if it helps get the point across. You should take a debate class or something. If your faith is superior prove it, belittling our faith doesn’t prove anything. It’s just a random ad hominem.[/quote]
You “yelling” the loudest and acting like an angry little man is not going to “change any minds, that’s for sure” - or, win any new converts.[/quote]
And you follow him around PWI like a jilted little bitch.
Get real, guy. You are about as pathetic as they come, and your MO is blindingly clear. You single Pat out (and you’ve done it before about relatively the same subject), you poke and prod and tiptoe around outright insults until you have, yes, badgered him into engaging you with hostility, then you act all surprised and victimized, as if you were just standing here whistling with your hands in your pockets. All the while, as Pat has pointed out, your most insightful observation has been, “You guys, but only Pat, are all wrong because we can’t know anything.”
You tried this in GAL when, I believe, somebody was in the throes of depression, and the group didn’t put up with it there, and you got gang raped. Would you like me to find that particular thread? I guess you come here and do it now to make yourself feel better. How sad. Seriously.
Little man indeed. [/quote]
LOL yes please find the thread. Because I don’t even remember Pat until this thread. And instead of putting Prep H on his butt nice and soft, why don’t you cut and paste in THIS thread where I insulted or badgered him. And, I did not “single” him out; he was the one yelling the loudest and the one I took exception to by drawing conclusions from unknowable facts. Go wash your hands.
I would also like to add that the Bodyguard is probably one of the people that, as Christians, we should be reaching out to the most. He may make inflamatory comments or whatever, but remember there before the grace of God go I. I remember going through most of my 20s making statements much the same, not believing, and living life for myself. The Bible commands us to pray for our enemies. That’s what we should be doing.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s called devotion. How exactly is it ‘zeal with out knowledge’? Hmmm. This is very arrogant of you. You really need to stop that crap if you want to make an impact. Calling the church a ‘whore’ is not going to change any minds, that’s for sure. We ask you for your knowledge, you just ignore it and switch gears…That’s either weakness, or a lack of knowledge.
I for one am not to good to repeat answers already given if it helps get the point across. You should take a debate class or something. If your faith is superior prove it, belittling our faith doesn’t prove anything. It’s just a random ad hominem.[/quote]
You “yelling” the loudest and acting like an angry little man is not going to “change any minds, that’s for sure” - or, win any new converts.[/quote]
And you follow him around PWI like a jilted little bitch.
Get real, guy. You are about as pathetic as they come, and your MO is blindingly clear. You single Pat out (and you’ve done it before about relatively the same subject), you poke and prod and tiptoe around outright insults until you have, yes, badgered him into engaging you with hostility, then you act all surprised and victimized, as if you were just standing here whistling with your hands in your pockets. All the while, as Pat has pointed out, your most insightful observation has been, “You guys, but only Pat, are all wrong because we can’t know anything.”
You tried this in GAL when, I believe, somebody was in the throes of depression, and the group didn’t put up with it there, and you got gang raped. Would you like me to find that particular thread? I guess you come here and do it now to make yourself feel better. How sad. Seriously.
Little man indeed. [/quote]
LOL yes please find the thread. Because I don’t even remember Pat until this thread. And instead of putting Prep H on his butt nice and soft, why don’t you cut and paste in THIS thread where I insulted or badgered him. And, I did not “single” him out; he was the one yelling the loudest and the one I took exception to by drawing conclusions from unknowable facts. Go wash your hands.[/quote]
“I took exception to by drawing conclusions from unknowable facts.”
I didn’t and you cannot prove I did, so “Mary why you buggin’?”
Show me what unknowable fact I used to prove something? And why don’t you counter argue instead of whining about how loud I was “screaming”. I was having a polite conversation and you butted in with ad hominems telling me what I do and do not know. You don’t know what I know and don’t know.
I do know your logic stinks ‘You don’t know anything, so your argument is wrong’. That’s just Aristotelian brilliance right there. It’s not even “my” argument, it’s ‘a’ argument. I didn’t make it up.
You’re task is simple, prove the argument wrong. Why can’t you simply do that? I know nothing, so it should be simple to debunk my know-nothingness…
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s called devotion. How exactly is it ‘zeal with out knowledge’? Hmmm. This is very arrogant of you. You really need to stop that crap if you want to make an impact. Calling the church a ‘whore’ is not going to change any minds, that’s for sure. We ask you for your knowledge, you just ignore it and switch gears…That’s either weakness, or a lack of knowledge.
I for one am not to good to repeat answers already given if it helps get the point across. You should take a debate class or something. If your faith is superior prove it, belittling our faith doesn’t prove anything. It’s just a random ad hominem.[/quote]
You “yelling” the loudest and acting like an angry little man is not going to “change any minds, that’s for sure” - or, win any new converts.[/quote]
PROVE ME WRONG, big man…Should be simple right? I don’t know what I am talking about right? Go nuts, prove me wrong. Attacking me doesn’t refute anything.[/quote]
Patience, Pat. You know this guy is prone to show up every now and then, make some posts, and then disappear. No point in lowering to his level. You know we always have your back except in a UT vs. UGA game. [/quote]
Thanks for the love fellas 
I appreciate it.
BTW, I am a Gamecock…I like UGA, ok, but not my fav. Now if you could keep your players out of prison, you could impact the SEC! Sadly, I don’t think USC will do anything until the kick Spurier to the curb. Trick plays, does not a good coach make.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
LOL yes please find the thread.[/quote]
My pleasure.
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/broken?id=3763181&pageNo=0
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/the_bodyguard_and_bricknyce
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< How anyone could read the new testament and conclude that Christ’s central message wasn’t love is
beyond me. >>>[/quote]It is not however beyond me that people who know nothing of the living God, His Word or His Christ would think it was. Jesus Christ didn’t have a message. He was and IS the message.
[/quote]
How about addressing the unequivocal scriptures that I posted, instead of dodging the point like you usually do? It’s like you’re incapable of having a constructive discussion. Stop judging me for admitting I don’t have all the answers, and actually address my points.
I’ve read the bible cover to cover numerous times, and I am flabbergasted how anyone could say that Jesus didn’t have a message. You believe in a puppeteer god that came to condemn men rather than offering the gift of salvation to all who would accept. It is a fabrication based on Calvin’s twisted philosophy, and completely misrepresents the core message of the new testament.[/quote]
I do believe we’re wasting our time.
Any way, to save some time…What kind of energy being the uncaused-cause?[/quote]
It is a waste of time trying to reason with someone that is 100% convinced that their religious beliefs are right. No amount of logic or evidence will make any difference, because they have fully surrendered to their cognitive biases.
That’s an interesting question, and I don’t know the answer. Our current list of elementary particles, which by definition have no substructure and can’t be reduced further, includes leptons, gauge bosons, and quarks. Maybe we will modify the list as our knowledge grows, and maybe not.
The point is that scientists generally accept that elementary particles exist. There is no regression problem if these elementary particles have always existed, independent of time. Photons are a type of gauge boson, and since they travel at the speed of light they are in a zero-time existence.
[/quote]
It’s a waste of time reasoning with somebody who doesn’t reason and acts like a robe wearing Maharishi trying to lead one to the conclusion of predestination.
Correct, elemetarty particles exist, and are thought to have a ‘string like nature’, so in a sense possibly divisible in sense?
Wait Bodyguard, am I right? Please fact check me here.
It still begs the question where did they come from, and what guides what they do and why?
[/quote]
Elementary particles aren’t divisible, since by definition they cannot be reduced further.
Asking where they come from implicitly assumes they had a beginning. The question doesn’t apply for elementary particles that have always existed. If something has always existed, it had no beginning and can be traced to no cause.
Elementary particles have a nature (charge, etc.) that guides what they do. If elementary particles have always existed, their nature has always existed. Asking why implies a supernatural purpose, when their behavior is definitionally natural. Gravity simply is. Electromagnetism simply is. They are descriptions of how matter and energy behave under various conditions.
There’s no need to invoke a supernatural creator, since elementary particles are entirely natural.[/quote]
Is what? What is gravity, far as I know, nobody actually knows. Staking the claim on creation gravity and particles is based on what exactly.? They are governed and behave a certain way because of their nature. Secondly they can actually be reduced further, perhaps not materially, but each come with a unique set of properties, their own charge, there own ‘weight’ (not to be confused with mass), their interaction with other particles, and perhaps even those elusive ‘strings’. So you can break it down even if you can’t split them any further. Which is actually not conclusively know either.
It could all just be energy which comes from what? If it just is than how is it, ‘just is’, what closes the system? Energy also, has components and is governed by ‘rules’ or ‘laws’.
I think you are still stuck on time which at this level, there really isn’t any.[/quote]
I’m not stuck on time at all. To the contrary, I’m arguing that elemental particles and energy have always existed. They are time-independent. They didn’t come from anything, because they had no beginning.
The flawed premise of the cosmological argument as you are applying it is that elemental particles and energy had a beginning. If you’re going to claim that the cosmological argument is true, the burden is on you to prove this premise. All I’ve seen so far is an allusion to black holes, which we don’t really understand, in order to claim that the laws of conservation don’t always apply. In contrast, there is an enormous body of evidence supporting the laws of conservation. This evidence directly contradicts the premise that elemental particles and energy had a beginning.
So I see a lot of evidence against the cosmological argument, and not much evidence for it. It could be true, but it seems unlikely. I definitely don’t see the validity of claiming that it probably is true.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< How anyone could read the new testament and conclude that Christ’s central message wasn’t love is
beyond me. >>>[/quote]It is not however beyond me that people who know nothing of the living God, His Word or His Christ would think it was. Jesus Christ didn’t have a message. He was and IS the message.
[/quote]
How about addressing the unequivocal scriptures that I posted, instead of dodging the point like you usually do? It’s like you’re incapable of having a constructive discussion. Stop judging me for admitting I don’t have all the answers, and actually address my points.
I’ve read the bible cover to cover numerous times, and I am flabbergasted how anyone could say that Jesus didn’t have a message. You believe in a puppeteer god that came to condemn men rather than offering the gift of salvation to all who would accept. It is a fabrication based on Calvin’s twisted philosophy, and completely misrepresents the core message of the new testament.[/quote]
I do believe we’re wasting our time.
Any way, to save some time…What kind of energy being the uncaused-cause?[/quote]
It is a waste of time trying to reason with someone that is 100% convinced that their religious beliefs are right. No amount of logic or evidence will make any difference, because they have fully surrendered to their cognitive biases.
That’s an interesting question, and I don’t know the answer. Our current list of elementary particles, which by definition have no substructure and can’t be reduced further, includes leptons, gauge bosons, and quarks. Maybe we will modify the list as our knowledge grows, and maybe not.
The point is that scientists generally accept that elementary particles exist. There is no regression problem if these elementary particles have always existed, independent of time. Photons are a type of gauge boson, and since they travel at the speed of light they are in a zero-time existence.
[/quote]
It’s a waste of time reasoning with somebody who doesn’t reason and acts like a robe wearing Maharishi trying to lead one to the conclusion of predestination.
Correct, elemetarty particles exist, and are thought to have a ‘string like nature’, so in a sense possibly divisible in sense?
Wait Bodyguard, am I right? Please fact check me here.
It still begs the question where did they come from, and what guides what they do and why?
[/quote]
Elementary particles aren’t divisible, since by definition they cannot be reduced further.
Asking where they come from implicitly assumes they had a beginning. The question doesn’t apply for elementary particles that have always existed. If something has always existed, it had no beginning and can be traced to no cause.
Elementary particles have a nature (charge, etc.) that guides what they do. If elementary particles have always existed, their nature has always existed. Asking why implies a supernatural purpose, when their behavior is definitionally natural. Gravity simply is. Electromagnetism simply is. They are descriptions of how matter and energy behave under various conditions.
There’s no need to invoke a supernatural creator, since elementary particles are entirely natural.[/quote]
Is what? What is gravity, far as I know, nobody actually knows. Staking the claim on creation gravity and particles is based on what exactly.? They are governed and behave a certain way because of their nature. Secondly they can actually be reduced further, perhaps not materially, but each come with a unique set of properties, their own charge, there own ‘weight’ (not to be confused with mass), their interaction with other particles, and perhaps even those elusive ‘strings’. So you can break it down even if you can’t split them any further. Which is actually not conclusively know either.
It could all just be energy which comes from what? If it just is than how is it, ‘just is’, what closes the system? Energy also, has components and is governed by ‘rules’ or ‘laws’.
I think you are still stuck on time which at this level, there really isn’t any.[/quote]
I’m not stuck on time at all. To the contrary, I’m arguing that elemental particles and energy have always existed. They are time-independent. They didn’t come from anything, because they had no beginning.
The flawed premise of the cosmological argument as you are applying it is that elemental particles and energy had a beginning. If you’re going to claim that the cosmological argument is true, the burden is on you to prove this premise. All I’ve seen so far is an allusion to black holes, which we don’t really understand, in order to claim that the laws of conservation don’t always apply. In contrast, there is an enormous body of evidence supporting the laws of conservation. This evidence directly contradicts the premise that elemental particles and energy had a beginning.
So I see a lot of evidence against the cosmological argument, and not much evidence for it. It could be true, but it seems unlikely. I definitely don’t see the validity of claiming that it probably is true.[/quote]
I don’t claim they had a beginning I have be trying to assert that they can have always existed, but they are still contingent. It simply doesn’t matter if they have always existed or not.
You have several problems here, first, they actually can be broken down further, even if not materially, they have charge, they have spin, and let’s say for the sake of argument string theory of some flavor is correct, then there are strings and brane components. Further, there is no evidence they can do anything on there own with out something else causing them to do so. You’ve made the claim that elementary particles made all of creation. So have these dependent particles, with dependent properties. These dependencies seem to removed any possibility they are causal and not caused. They appear to be further down the line in ghe causal chain. How’d they do it, and where did this force come from.
Also, elementary particles are only thought to not be made up of no smaller particles, but nobody can see that small yet, either through math or empirical observation. So it is possible.
If you are not seeing evidence for it, your simply not even trying. It is everywhere. The fact that so many people from so many disciplines are trying to debunk it, and no other creative theory, AND have not been successful is pretty damn good evidence alone that it’s solid. Further, the more debunking attempts fail, the stronger the argument gets.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Blessed are the persecuted, I suppose. >>>[/quote]Oh please dear Christopher tell me you didn’t just say this. THIS is persecution? Welcome to post modern American Christianity. I have no problem with the - thing, I use uppercase out of respect, but to call that discipline? [quote]Brother Chris wrote:It is not taking His name in vain, but if I don’t write it or say it then I can’t possibly take it in vain. [/quote]This is legalistic bondage Chris. Yes it is. I am not making fun of you so do not take it that way. You wanna not take God’s name in vain? Recognize that while you claim His gospel as your own, every syllable that falls from your lips or keyboard is taken by the world as representing Him. Please let that sink in. It took me a while to get that.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Yes, more discipline. You going to make fun of me for doing charitable acts as well, “more stuff”? How about me praying the Pater Noster or the Ave Maria or the Rosary after supper? How about praying seven times a day? How about waking up at 0500 so I can do my Holy Hour before I start the day? Or, how about learning Latin? How about going to mass, is that just more “stuff”?[/quote]Yes… it is. It’s zeal without knowledge my friend. It is just not within my power to make you see that.[quote]Brother Chris wrote: <<< Don’t be like Tirib and ignore the question.[/quote]Yeah, Zeb. Don’t be like Trib. Can’t see how all these questions I’ve ignored after the ten thousandth time of answering? Whatever you do, don’t do that.
[/quote]
I guess it’s ok to ignore agnostics though, since obviously they’re tools of Satan.
Unfortunately for you, I know the bible well enough to show your heresy for what it is. You have no constructive response to the scriptures I quoted, so you choose to ignore me. You claim Jesus had no message, and that he came to condemn people rather than love them. Despite your protestations about being alive in Christ, you are dead wrong.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< How anyone could read the new testament and conclude that Christ’s central message wasn’t love is
beyond me. >>>[/quote]It is not however beyond me that people who know nothing of the living God, His Word or His Christ would think it was. Jesus Christ didn’t have a message. He was and IS the message.
[/quote]
How about addressing the unequivocal scriptures that I posted, instead of dodging the point like you usually do? It’s like you’re incapable of having a constructive discussion. Stop judging me for admitting I don’t have all the answers, and actually address my points.
I’ve read the bible cover to cover numerous times, and I am flabbergasted how anyone could say that Jesus didn’t have a message. You believe in a puppeteer god that came to condemn men rather than offering the gift of salvation to all who would accept. It is a fabrication based on Calvin’s twisted philosophy, and completely misrepresents the core message of the new testament.[/quote]
I do believe we’re wasting our time.
Any way, to save some time…What kind of energy being the uncaused-cause?[/quote]
It is a waste of time trying to reason with someone that is 100% convinced that their religious beliefs are right. No amount of logic or evidence will make any difference, because they have fully surrendered to their cognitive biases.
That’s an interesting question, and I don’t know the answer. Our current list of elementary particles, which by definition have no substructure and can’t be reduced further, includes leptons, gauge bosons, and quarks. Maybe we will modify the list as our knowledge grows, and maybe not.
The point is that scientists generally accept that elementary particles exist. There is no regression problem if these elementary particles have always existed, independent of time. Photons are a type of gauge boson, and since they travel at the speed of light they are in a zero-time existence.
[/quote]
It’s a waste of time reasoning with somebody who doesn’t reason and acts like a robe wearing Maharishi trying to lead one to the conclusion of predestination.
Correct, elemetarty particles exist, and are thought to have a ‘string like nature’, so in a sense possibly divisible in sense?
Wait Bodyguard, am I right? Please fact check me here.
It still begs the question where did they come from, and what guides what they do and why?
[/quote]
Elementary particles aren’t divisible, since by definition they cannot be reduced further.
Asking where they come from implicitly assumes they had a beginning. The question doesn’t apply for elementary particles that have always existed. If something has always existed, it had no beginning and can be traced to no cause.
Elementary particles have a nature (charge, etc.) that guides what they do. If elementary particles have always existed, their nature has always existed. Asking why implies a supernatural purpose, when their behavior is definitionally natural. Gravity simply is. Electromagnetism simply is. They are descriptions of how matter and energy behave under various conditions.
There’s no need to invoke a supernatural creator, since elementary particles are entirely natural.[/quote]
Is what? What is gravity, far as I know, nobody actually knows. Staking the claim on creation gravity and particles is based on what exactly.? They are governed and behave a certain way because of their nature. Secondly they can actually be reduced further, perhaps not materially, but each come with a unique set of properties, their own charge, there own ‘weight’ (not to be confused with mass), their interaction with other particles, and perhaps even those elusive ‘strings’. So you can break it down even if you can’t split them any further. Which is actually not conclusively know either.
It could all just be energy which comes from what? If it just is than how is it, ‘just is’, what closes the system? Energy also, has components and is governed by ‘rules’ or ‘laws’.
I think you are still stuck on time which at this level, there really isn’t any.[/quote]
I’m not stuck on time at all. To the contrary, I’m arguing that elemental particles and energy have always existed. They are time-independent. They didn’t come from anything, because they had no beginning.
The flawed premise of the cosmological argument as you are applying it is that elemental particles and energy had a beginning. If you’re going to claim that the cosmological argument is true, the burden is on you to prove this premise. All I’ve seen so far is an allusion to black holes, which we don’t really understand, in order to claim that the laws of conservation don’t always apply. In contrast, there is an enormous body of evidence supporting the laws of conservation. This evidence directly contradicts the premise that elemental particles and energy had a beginning.
So I see a lot of evidence against the cosmological argument, and not much evidence for it. It could be true, but it seems unlikely. I definitely don’t see the validity of claiming that it probably is true.[/quote]
I don’t claim they had a beginning I have be trying to assert that they can have always existed, but they are still contingent. It simply doesn’t matter if they have always existed or not.
You have several problems here, first, they actually can be broken down further, even if not materially, they have charge, they have spin, and let’s say for the sake of argument string theory of some flavor is correct, then there are strings and brane components. Further, there is no evidence they can do anything on there own with out something else causing them to do so. You’ve made the claim that elementary particles made all of creation. So have these dependent particles, with dependent properties. These dependencies seem to removed any possibility they are causal and not caused. They appear to be further down the line in ghe causal chain. How’d they do it, and where did this force come from.
Also, elementary particles are only thought to not be made up of no smaller particles, but nobody can see that small yet, either through math or empirical observation. So it is possible.
If you are not seeing evidence for it, your simply not even trying. It is everywhere. The fact that so many people from so many disciplines are trying to debunk it, and no other creative theory, AND have not been successful is pretty damn good evidence alone that it’s solid. Further, the more debunking attempts fail, the stronger the argument gets. [/quote]
Explain to me how it is possible for something to be contingent if it exists outside of time. I know you’ve claimed it’s possible, but where is your evidence for the claim?
Secondly, even if you prove all matter and energy is contingent, where is your proof that the entire causal chain itself is contingent?
Finally, the contingency requirement is flawed because it is solely inductive. It cannot be deductively proven that contingency is universal, so the cosmological argument cannot be definitively proven to be true.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Nobody here is claim to be a TP. Their theories are handy for supporting causal relationship. We’re not trying to do what they do. Further, the discussion is about God. God is the creator. If you consider him something different we are not talking about the same thing. I use their damn good speculative theories to prove that nothing exists uncaused, save for that which caused with out being caused. Nothing more. I am not sure why think that the postulations by people with a lot of letters behind their names is off limits? We can’t talk about and use it? Why? Is it sacred in some way? We can only butcher it if we regurgitate the information incorrectly. If we have not, then we have not done anybody any injustice. We’re not debating their validity.[/quote]
First, you assume you’re interpreting AND applying what you read correctly. And, do you realize you just wrote “theory” and “prove” in the same sentence? A theory cannot “prove” anything. A theory is a theory - “nothing more” as you say above. And, it is NOT proven that “nothing exists uncaused, save for that which caused with out being caused.”
[/quote]
I am not interpreting anything. Second, if I made a mistake then show me what it is. Don’t say I repeated or interpreted anything wrong unless you can show me. Otherwise what the point of saying it. Did I repeat anything wrong? If so I will correct it. Don’t tell me I may have made a mistake and then not prove it.
I am using arguments others use to show that even if said theory is correct, it still does not deny causation. So yes, I used theory and prove in the same sentence, because whether or not theory is correct, causation stands regardless…
All things are caused save for that which caused it, is a deductive logical necessity. If you can prove it wrong then do so. If you can find even one tiny thing that exists with out a cause, then tell me what it is.[/quote]
There is no evidence the universe was “caused”. None. So stop it. The best you can say is that there are promising theories that the “known universe” was caused by the big bang. And the “known universe” is still very “unknowable”. And big bang theory is still subject to dispute. We cannot say what existed prior to any such cause (or “bang”), if any. Your “deductive logical necessity” is trapped in your perception of the world, like the one dimensional creature on flatland, to use a TP thought experiment. You are trying to “perceive” and “think” and then apply theories that only have math behind them. No one “thought” or “perceived” such theories. They are math theories at the end of the day. You’re taking cold hard advanced math and theorems, dressing them up in your 3 dimensional world which includes a potentially faulty perception of time, and you’re using them to support your opinions on religion, which I repeat, the latter is a matter of faith. You’re better off arguing your scriptures.
Anyway, these threads ALWAYS end the same way. With frustration. Wars have been waged about this nonsense - don’t go fooling yourself that you’ll make any headway with the opposition.[/quote]
You’re job is easy, prove it wasn’t caused. I have laid down my arguments plenty in many different forms. Everything that exists exists for a reason unless you posit that what exists was uncaused, aka. random, or in other words something from nothing.
Stop it? Fuck off, you have no right to tell me what to do. I will do what I want,say what I want and will not rely on the fear of appealing to authority ← which in it self is a logical fallacy.
If you don’t like what I say, then prove it wrong or fuck off, period.
I’ll even make it easy here is a link read, weap…It’s full of points and counter points.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
Shall I send for the Nobel folks for I found the one guy who can disprove the cosmological form? All I have seen you do is tell me I don’t have the smarts or the right to question anybody. That’s your problem not mine.
So genius, PROVE ME WRONG.[/quote]
Does anyone notice it didn’t take long for this “Christian” to start acting like one? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Dude, really? Take a valium please.
Nothing about the existence, start or end of the universe can be “proven”. We don’t know - and you know that, and that’s why you talk around the point. Neither I, nor anyone else, can prove the “universe” (possibly a misnomer depending on what constitutes the “universe” and whether there are multiple and what, if anything lies beyond it) was “caused” or “uncaused”. No one. Not even your reference that you keep providing that I did read. The answer is simply unknowable right now and may never be none. Do you ever foresee a time in humanity when we can travel to the edge of the known and visible universe and “view it” or explore it? Do you ever foresee a time in humanity where we can view it, given it’s apparent expansion? No. And no. Until then, we have theories and a bunch of advanced math. Hell, we will probably never be able to view strings, if they in fact exist - strings being the result of advanced math.
So, “fuck off”? Is that what Jesus would say? You Christians are certainly an interesting bunch. Then again, you believe you’re “forgiven”, but will I forgive you?[/quote]
If you expect me to sit here and take badgering by you just because I am a Christian you can forget it. You question my qualifications on talking about this stuff on a body building web site? Really? I do have a resume, but I am not sending it to you.
Deductive arguments are known closed systems, you do not need to know everything about everything for something to be absolutely true.
Inferred or inductive arguments are the ‘best guesses’ where you do have to know everything about it for it to be an absolute truth <-that’s science.
Cosmology is a closed form, it has all the premises and a conclusion that follows that it needs to be a truth. The only thing you can do is disprove the premises, or the conclusion the argument structure is solid. You can work it over until you puke and you cannot break it.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think of me, or whether or not I am a Christian or not. You aren’t going to tell me what to do and what I can and cannot discuss. Who the fuck are you to do such a thing? What are your qualifications that allow you to come a boss people around? It’s clear you came here to badger me. So yes, you can fuck off if you don’t like it.
Further, I don’t rightly give a shit if you do or don’t ‘forgive’ me. I may be a Christian, but I am not a doormat.
[/quote]
Thanks again for showing your ass. I’d invite you and anyone else for that matter to look back at my replies to you and find any “badgering” or anything at all that could be construed as being direspectful toward you. You seem to have a problem with being challenged. A lot of little people are like that. You’re not alone. You may not be a doormat, but you’re an angry little Christian.
That aside, your arguments are flawed. You can discuss whatever you wish, but don’t get all angry when someone points out the flaws in your alleged “logic”. About the most accurate word you typed above is “guess”. That’s what our theories are, guesses, based on math.
They are not absolutes and considered the math behind them, you’d understand that there are many sleight of hand tricks to get the numbers to agree, based on UNKNOWNS. Have you considered the math behind string theory? Are you aware of it? There are so many unknowns about our universe, that to allege “facts” and “conclusions” as you do is shortsighted and foolish.
[/quote]
Oh, Precisely what flaw did you point out? Looking back, I don’t see a a single counter argument. All you have done is point out how little we know and how I shouldn’t dare use the science because I am not as smart as they are.
If you got a counter argument, give it. I’d like to see. All you have done is ad hominums. Secondly, if you read as carefully as you claim, you’d realize that forlife is arguing based on science, not me. Why don’t you tell him how unqualified and unworthy he is for using it to argue that God does not exist?
So if you can counter argue, let’s see it. I invite you to refute the argument. [/quote]
I’m not arguing that god doesn’t exist. I’m arguing that based on logic and what we currently know, it is unjustified to conclude that god exists. The burden of proof is on people making a claim.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< How anyone could read the new testament and conclude that Christ’s central message wasn’t love is
beyond me. >>>[/quote]It is not however beyond me that people who know nothing of the living God, His Word or His Christ would think it was. Jesus Christ didn’t have a message. He was and IS the message.
[/quote]
How about addressing the unequivocal scriptures that I posted, instead of dodging the point like you usually do? It’s like you’re incapable of having a constructive discussion. Stop judging me for admitting I don’t have all the answers, and actually address my points.
I’ve read the bible cover to cover numerous times, and I am flabbergasted how anyone could say that Jesus didn’t have a message. You believe in a puppeteer god that came to condemn men rather than offering the gift of salvation to all who would accept. It is a fabrication based on Calvin’s twisted philosophy, and completely misrepresents the core message of the new testament.[/quote]
I do believe we’re wasting our time.
Any way, to save some time…What kind of energy being the uncaused-cause?[/quote]
It is a waste of time trying to reason with someone that is 100% convinced that their religious beliefs are right. No amount of logic or evidence will make any difference, because they have fully surrendered to their cognitive biases.
That’s an interesting question, and I don’t know the answer. Our current list of elementary particles, which by definition have no substructure and can’t be reduced further, includes leptons, gauge bosons, and quarks. Maybe we will modify the list as our knowledge grows, and maybe not.
The point is that scientists generally accept that elementary particles exist. There is no regression problem if these elementary particles have always existed, independent of time. Photons are a type of gauge boson, and since they travel at the speed of light they are in a zero-time existence.
[/quote]
It’s a waste of time reasoning with somebody who doesn’t reason and acts like a robe wearing Maharishi trying to lead one to the conclusion of predestination.
Correct, elemetarty particles exist, and are thought to have a ‘string like nature’, so in a sense possibly divisible in sense?
Wait Bodyguard, am I right? Please fact check me here.
It still begs the question where did they come from, and what guides what they do and why?
[/quote]
Elementary particles aren’t divisible, since by definition they cannot be reduced further.
Asking where they come from implicitly assumes they had a beginning. The question doesn’t apply for elementary particles that have always existed. If something has always existed, it had no beginning and can be traced to no cause.
Elementary particles have a nature (charge, etc.) that guides what they do. If elementary particles have always existed, their nature has always existed. Asking why implies a supernatural purpose, when their behavior is definitionally natural. Gravity simply is. Electromagnetism simply is. They are descriptions of how matter and energy behave under various conditions.
There’s no need to invoke a supernatural creator, since elementary particles are entirely natural.[/quote]
Is what? What is gravity, far as I know, nobody actually knows. Staking the claim on creation gravity and particles is based on what exactly.? They are governed and behave a certain way because of their nature. Secondly they can actually be reduced further, perhaps not materially, but each come with a unique set of properties, their own charge, there own ‘weight’ (not to be confused with mass), their interaction with other particles, and perhaps even those elusive ‘strings’. So you can break it down even if you can’t split them any further. Which is actually not conclusively know either.
It could all just be energy which comes from what? If it just is than how is it, ‘just is’, what closes the system? Energy also, has components and is governed by ‘rules’ or ‘laws’.
I think you are still stuck on time which at this level, there really isn’t any.[/quote]
I’m not stuck on time at all. To the contrary, I’m arguing that elemental particles and energy have always existed. They are time-independent. They didn’t come from anything, because they had no beginning.
The flawed premise of the cosmological argument as you are applying it is that elemental particles and energy had a beginning. If you’re going to claim that the cosmological argument is true, the burden is on you to prove this premise. All I’ve seen so far is an allusion to black holes, which we don’t really understand, in order to claim that the laws of conservation don’t always apply. In contrast, there is an enormous body of evidence supporting the laws of conservation. This evidence directly contradicts the premise that elemental particles and energy had a beginning.
So I see a lot of evidence against the cosmological argument, and not much evidence for it. It could be true, but it seems unlikely. I definitely don’t see the validity of claiming that it probably is true.[/quote]
I don’t claim they had a beginning I have be trying to assert that they can have always existed, but they are still contingent. It simply doesn’t matter if they have always existed or not.
You have several problems here, first, they actually can be broken down further, even if not materially, they have charge, they have spin, and let’s say for the sake of argument string theory of some flavor is correct, then there are strings and brane components. Further, there is no evidence they can do anything on there own with out something else causing them to do so. You’ve made the claim that elementary particles made all of creation. So have these dependent particles, with dependent properties. These dependencies seem to removed any possibility they are causal and not caused. They appear to be further down the line in ghe causal chain. How’d they do it, and where did this force come from.
Also, elementary particles are only thought to not be made up of no smaller particles, but nobody can see that small yet, either through math or empirical observation. So it is possible.
If you are not seeing evidence for it, your simply not even trying. It is everywhere. The fact that so many people from so many disciplines are trying to debunk it, and no other creative theory, AND have not been successful is pretty damn good evidence alone that it’s solid. Further, the more debunking attempts fail, the stronger the argument gets. [/quote]
Explain to me how it is possible for something to be contingent if it exists outside of time. I know you’ve claimed it’s possible, but where is your evidence for the claim?[/quote]
Here is some light reading on the topic:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/
Causation has volumes of work on it and how it actually works. What we know is that causes necessitate their effects. Simultaneous causation has been empirically evidenced via the EPR Paradox which you’ve heard me reference before. Further evidence lies beyond the even horizon, if we are still talking scientifically here, everything happens simultaneously. Now that’s just empiricism. Then there is the causal chain within metaphysics, there is no time in metaphysics. Mathematical expressions are also time independent and express causal relationships. You cannot have 4 with out 4 ones or 2, two’s.
To understand it better, it’s easier to look at it backward. X must have Y and Z, if not Z then not X. If not Y then not X. Y and Z are causes of X, if X is missing either, then it’s no longer X. Y and Z don’t have to precede X for X to need them to exist.
So taking elementary particles as an example if you have no spin, you don’t have a quark, you remove it’s charge, you remove its quark-ness. Said quark must have these to exist or it’s no longer a quark
Contingency is a way to express causation. Therefore, by very definition everything in it is contingent. You hit a billiard ball with another ball, the movement of the second is dependent on the movement of the first, but also, they must share a table, a level surface, and one must be put in motion to make the other move. So you have contingencies the obvious contingencies of two balls are required, but also, proximity, level surface, material, roundness, etc. All must be true for this scenario to take place.
[quote]
Finally, the contingency requirement is flawed because it is solely inductive. It cannot be deductively proven that contingency is universal, so the cosmological argument cannot be definitively proven to be true.[/quote]
No, it is purely deductive. The argument does not infer it deduces. You don’t have to know everything, or anything really for this to be true.
If you find one uncaused thing, you’ve found the uncaused-causer. The more you break things down, the more singular they become.
Pat,
- From my limited reading of the EPR paradox, far from being conclusive proof that contingency exists outside of time, the jury is still out. Wthin the Copenhagen interpretation, some believe there is no causal instantaneous effect. That is, it may be a problem with measurement and not with the system itself.
Furthermore, it doesn’t apply to our discussion because the measurement itself is time-bound. The effect can’t occur until the measurement occurs, which is different from arguing that two entities are mutually contingent when completely outside of time. It’s cool stuff, but we are still far from being able to draw any definite conclusions about contingency and causality.
-
I was actually talking about the non contingency of the chain itself. In other words, what if the links of the chain are contingent on each other, but the chain is infinite and non contingent? It’s very possible that the chain is non contingent, despite being comprised of contingent components.
-
No, the causality premise of the cosmological argument is inductive rather than deductive. From Wiki:
Therefore, we can’t conclude that causality is universal, just because we observe causality in our corner of the universe.
As I said, I’m not arguing the cosmological argument must be false, only that there isn’t anywhere near sufficient evidence to claim that it is likely to be true.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s called devotion. How exactly is it ‘zeal with out knowledge’? Hmmm. This is very arrogant of you. You really need to stop that crap if you want to make an impact. Calling the church a ‘whore’ is not going to change any minds, that’s for sure. We ask you for your knowledge, you just ignore it and switch gears…That’s either weakness, or a lack of knowledge.
I for one am not to good to repeat answers already given if it helps get the point across. You should take a debate class or something. If your faith is superior prove it, belittling our faith doesn’t prove anything. It’s just a random ad hominem.[/quote]
You “yelling” the loudest and acting like an angry little man is not going to “change any minds, that’s for sure” - or, win any new converts.[/quote]
And you follow him around PWI like a jilted little bitch.
Get real, guy. You are about as pathetic as they come, and your MO is blindingly clear. You single Pat out (and you’ve done it before about relatively the same subject), you poke and prod and tiptoe around outright insults until you have, yes, badgered him into engaging you with hostility, then you act all surprised and victimized, as if you were just standing here whistling with your hands in your pockets. All the while, as Pat has pointed out, your most insightful observation has been, “You guys, but only Pat, are all wrong because we can’t know anything.”
You tried this in GAL when, I believe, somebody was in the throes of depression, and the group didn’t put up with it there, and you got gang raped. Would you like me to find that particular thread? I guess you come here and do it now to make yourself feel better. How sad. Seriously.
Little man indeed. [/quote]
LOL yes please find the thread. Because I don’t even remember Pat until this thread. And instead of putting Prep H on his butt nice and soft, why don’t you cut and paste in THIS thread where I insulted or badgered him. And, I did not “single” him out; he was the one yelling the loudest and the one I took exception to by drawing conclusions from unknowable facts. Go wash your hands.[/quote]
“I took exception to by drawing conclusions from unknowable facts.”
I didn’t and you cannot prove I did, so “Mary why you buggin’?”
Show me what unknowable fact I used to prove something? And why don’t you counter argue instead of whining about how loud I was “screaming”. I was having a polite conversation and you butted in with ad hominems telling me what I do and do not know. You don’t know what I know and don’t know.
I do know your logic stinks ‘You don’t know anything, so your argument is wrong’. That’s just Aristotelian brilliance right there. It’s not even “my” argument, it’s ‘a’ argument. I didn’t make it up.
You’re task is simple, prove the argument wrong. Why can’t you simply do that? I know nothing, so it should be simple to debunk my know-nothingness…[/quote]
The logic was, and still is, that you cannot draw the conclusions you are drawing because we simply DO NOT KNOW THE ORIGINS OR THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE OR EVEN THE PHYSICS BEHIND IT. We do not fully grasp TIME. We do not fully grasp something seemingly as “simple” as GRAVITY.
The arguments you illustrate with your words only exist in MATH - math with liberties taken to make the numbers agree. You cannot yet use TP and cosmological argument to prove or disprove the existence of non-existence of God. That was my point then, and that remains my point. You cannot “prove” something that we don’t know no more than I can disprove it. And, I didn’t start “bugging” until you started being disrespectful.
Until we know, and we are unlikely to EVER know, this is all just speculation.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Zeal without knowledge, >>>[/quote]Read the 10th of Romans starting right at verse one. I think I’m gonna take the night off.
[/quote]
Romans 9:32 says, without faith…by works. The first theological virtue of the Catholic Church is faith. Catholics hold to faith and works. Works being the act of doing G-d’s will. Your point is void.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
LOL yes please find the thread.[/quote]
My pleasure.
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/broken?id=3763181&pageNo=0
I really don’t have the time to read this yet but I will. If you think I remember “Pat” you’re sadly mistaken. And if you think I “follow him around PWI” you’re a fucking liar with his dick in your mouth. This is the first time, in a a very very long time, that I have ventured to PWI. Get a life dude…he can stick up for himself. He made it personal. Are you guys part of some militant christian group? Scary. LOL
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
LOL yes please find the thread.[/quote]
My pleasure.
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/broken?id=3763181&pageNo=0
Hmm, first one nothing to do with Pat. Me and Big Boss now friendly. Do you have a point there? Nice Try.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
LOL yes please find the thread.[/quote]
My pleasure.
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/broken?id=3763181&pageNo=0
LOL 2nd one again, nothing to do with Pat. And the thread didn’t exactly live up to it’s intended expectations. How about I direct you to the thread where I was voted by several as their “favorite poster”?
What any of this has to do with your baseless accusations is anyone’s guess. I knew Pat’s arguments were flawed, but I did not know they were so weak they needed personal attacks and misdirection to defend. Wow. LOL
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s called devotion. How exactly is it ‘zeal with out knowledge’? Hmmm. This is very arrogant of you. You really need to stop that crap if you want to make an impact. Calling the church a ‘whore’ is not going to change any minds, that’s for sure. We ask you for your knowledge, you just ignore it and switch gears…That’s either weakness, or a lack of knowledge.
I for one am not to good to repeat answers already given if it helps get the point across. You should take a debate class or something. If your faith is superior prove it, belittling our faith doesn’t prove anything. It’s just a random ad hominem.[/quote]
You “yelling” the loudest and acting like an angry little man is not going to “change any minds, that’s for sure” - or, win any new converts.[/quote]
And you follow him around PWI like a jilted little bitch.
Get real, guy. You are about as pathetic as they come, and your MO is blindingly clear. You single Pat out (and you’ve done it before about relatively the same subject), you poke and prod and tiptoe around outright insults until you have, yes, badgered him into engaging you with hostility, then you act all surprised and victimized, as if you were just standing here whistling with your hands in your pockets. All the while, as Pat has pointed out, your most insightful observation has been, “You guys, but only Pat, are all wrong because we can’t know anything.”
You tried this in GAL when, I believe, somebody was in the throes of depression, and the group didn’t put up with it there, and you got gang raped. Would you like me to find that particular thread? I guess you come here and do it now to make yourself feel better. How sad. Seriously.
Little man indeed. [/quote]
LOL yes please find the thread. Because I don’t even remember Pat until this thread. And instead of putting Prep H on his butt nice and soft, why don’t you cut and paste in THIS thread where I insulted or badgered him. And, I did not “single” him out; he was the one yelling the loudest and the one I took exception to by drawing conclusions from unknowable facts. Go wash your hands.[/quote]
“I took exception to by drawing conclusions from unknowable facts.”
I didn’t and you cannot prove I did, so “Mary why you buggin’?”
Show me what unknowable fact I used to prove something? And why don’t you counter argue instead of whining about how loud I was “screaming”. I was having a polite conversation and you butted in with ad hominems telling me what I do and do not know. You don’t know what I know and don’t know.
I do know your logic stinks ‘You don’t know anything, so your argument is wrong’. That’s just Aristotelian brilliance right there. It’s not even “my” argument, it’s ‘a’ argument. I didn’t make it up.
You’re task is simple, prove the argument wrong. Why can’t you simply do that? I know nothing, so it should be simple to debunk my know-nothingness…[/quote]
The logic was, and still is, that you cannot draw the conclusions you are drawing because we simply DO NOT KNOW THE ORIGINS OR THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE OR EVEN THE PHYSICS BEHIND IT. We do not fully grasp TIME. We do not fully grasp something seemingly as “simple” as GRAVITY.
The arguments you illustrate with your words only exist in MATH - math with liberties taken to make the numbers agree. You cannot yet use TP and cosmological argument to prove or disprove the existence of non-existence of God. That was my point then, and that remains my point. You cannot “prove” something that we don’t know no more than I can disprove it. And, I didn’t start “bugging” until you started being disrespectful.
Until we know, and we are unlikely to EVER know, this is all just speculation. [/quote]
LOL! Well, that’s not even fallacious it’s just a plain miss. You do not understand the argument at all, which is obvious.
You have to you either have to disprove causation, or disprove the necessity of the uncaused-cause. It really does not matter if we know about the universe or not, or even if we lived in a completely different universe. It doesn’t matter if time is an illusion or real, it doesn’t matter if it’s strings, monsters and aliens, etc.
If you got a problem with people using those theories to prove or disprove the existence of God, go bitch at them, that’s not what I am doing. I am pointing out merely why even if they are true, they simply cannot invalidate the argument.
You have to prove the existence of randomness, and/ or ‘something from nothing’, it’s that simple.
At least you tried…