[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Simple question Pat. How did the universe spring into existence?[/quote]
Far as I know, the current theory is the big bang occurring some where between 13 and 15 billion years ago. Beyond that I don’t know…[/quote]
Oh, that was not very satisfying. What with all the references you posted and the blustering about causes and cosmology.
What preceded the big bang? What caused it?[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The very “perception” of causation, and the principles you assign to it are directly related to man’s experience with the universe as we know it. And we can all agree, WE DO NOT KNOW THE UNIVERSE. If you do not know the universe, causation as you perceive it, is not necessarily required.
Your very own scriptures speak of “eternal” yet you cannot imagine it or accept it, because apparently Pat requires a cause, and if there is a cause, there is a beginning. If there is a beginning, it was not eternal.
I’m open to the possibility that “it” was always here. I say “it” because we do not know the nature of this universe, if there is only one, if the universe is contained within something else, etc and so forth. [/quote]
Incorrect, you could have saved yourself the trouble if you read the link. It’s all addressed.
So, prove causation is not required. If you know I am wrong, then you should know this answer. If you are simply going to say we don’t know the universe, just don’t bother because it misses the point.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It is almost beyond all belief how you guys have absolutely no idea of even the general drift of what I’m saying so much of the time. Of course you will rejoice in declaring how that’s just as it should be with a hopeless schismatic antique Calvinist protestant like myself. I would turn that back at ya as I hope you would expect by now, but there’s no telling WHAT you might expect by now.
I made a couple challenges where if it could be demonstrated by quoting me that I had said some outrageous things that Pat was accusing me of I would convert to Catholicism and post a video of myself saying the rosary. I find posts here now from you guys expecting both of those actions on my part though no such demonstration of my alleged statements has been forthcoming.
Now these posts from Pat and Chris that are not even intelligible in light of the previous train of thought. I’m not calling you guys idiots so don’t take it that way, I’m simply highlighting how differently we approach even simple communication when it comes to “life and godliness”.[/quote]
You can’t be that devoid of a sense of humor, can you? I was just kidding. [/quote]Am I to surmise from this that you are thereby recanting your assertions regarding my alleged statements? Or do you even know what I’m talkin about anymore?
See I would never say you said something outrageous unless I was prepared to quote you saying it. I could still make a mistake though in which case I would say… you guessed it… “I made a mistake”. What I would not do was just go on as if nothing happened. I also wouldn’t persist in my allegations without documentation.
All you need to do Pat is say, "I made a mistake’. Or “I misunderstood you”. Or EVEN “you didn’t communicate clearly”. What you do not get to do is continue alleging that I have said that I know the final state of ANY person, Catholics included or that “the Holy Spirit<<<>>>could not inspire his people to salvation”.
Simply ignoring this whole thing now after slinging these personal accusations directly at me individually, by name, despite my protestations (no pun) to the contrary would make you a demonstrable cheap dishonest schmuck, regardless of religion. A thing which I would be sincerely pleased to avoid being forced to think of you. I mean that.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Simple question Pat. How did the universe spring into existence?[/quote]
Far as I know, the current theory is the big bang occurring some where between 13 and 15 billion years ago. Beyond that I don’t know…[/quote]
Oh, that was not very satisfying. What with all the references you posted and the blustering about causes and cosmology.
What preceded the big bang? What caused it?[/quote]
Exactly.
[/quote]
Clever answer. So “cause” caused it. LOL. Why don’t you answer the question?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The very “perception” of causation, and the principles you assign to it are directly related to man’s experience with the universe as we know it. And we can all agree, WE DO NOT KNOW THE UNIVERSE. If you do not know the universe, causation as you perceive it, is not necessarily required.
Your very own scriptures speak of “eternal” yet you cannot imagine it or accept it, because apparently Pat requires a cause, and if there is a cause, there is a beginning. If there is a beginning, it was not eternal.
I’m open to the possibility that “it” was always here. I say “it” because we do not know the nature of this universe, if there is only one, if the universe is contained within something else, etc and so forth. [/quote]
Incorrect, you could have saved yourself the trouble if you read the link. It’s all addressed.
So, prove causation is not required. If you know I am wrong, then you should know this answer. If you are simply going to say we don’t know the universe, just don’t bother because it misses the point.[/quote]
I don’t have to read your assignment. I’m familiar with the arguments. YOU are not addressing or understanding MY point. The arguments contained on your page are STILL trapped in our perception of and experience with the universe.
So, prove causation is required. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It is almost beyond all belief how you guys have absolutely no idea of even the general drift of what I’m saying so much of the time. Of course you will rejoice in declaring how that’s just as it should be with a hopeless schismatic antique Calvinist protestant like myself. I would turn that back at ya as I hope you would expect by now, but there’s no telling WHAT you might expect by now.
I made a couple challenges where if it could be demonstrated by quoting me that I had said some outrageous things that Pat was accusing me of I would convert to Catholicism and post a video of myself saying the rosary. I find posts here now from you guys expecting both of those actions on my part though no such demonstration of my alleged statements has been forthcoming.
Now these posts from Pat and Chris that are not even intelligible in light of the previous train of thought. I’m not calling you guys idiots so don’t take it that way, I’m simply highlighting how differently we approach even simple communication when it comes to “life and godliness”.[/quote]
You can’t be that devoid of a sense of humor, can you? I was just kidding. [/quote]Am I to surmise from this that you are thereby recanting your assertions regarding my alleged statements? Or do you even know what I’m talkin about anymore?
See I would never say you said something outrageous unless I was prepared to quote you saying it. I could still make a mistake though in which case I would say… you guessed it… “I made a mistake”. What I would not do was just go on as if nothing happened. I also wouldn’t persist in my allegations without documentation.
All you need to do Pat is say, "I made a mistake’. Or “I misunderstood you”. Or EVEN “you didn’t communicate clearly”. What you do not get to do is continue alleging that I have said that I know the final state of ANY person, Catholics included or that “the Holy Spirit<<<>>>could not inspire his people to salvation”.
Simply ignoring this whole thing now after slinging these personal accusations directly at me individually, by name, despite my protestations (no pun) to the contrary would make you a demonstrable cheap dishonest schmuck, regardless of religion. A thing which I would be sincerely pleased to avoid being forced to think of you. I mean that.
[/quote]
I definitely addressed them when you said them, I took you to task on them. You just simply ignored me, just like you did here many, many times where if I ask a tough question you ignore it, only to later go on a diatribe on how the Catholic Church is leading people to hell, is a whore, etc. You do this with no basis in fact, it’s purely emotive.
You know as well as I don’t navigating some 3000+ posts to find specific lines is very difficult and time consuming. Further, why should I bother when you simply ignore anything you don’t like? That’s a lot of effort to get ignored over.
I have addressed them as the time you said such things. Think back through your various hate-filled diatribes on Catholics and Catholicism.
You said the same kind of crap to Chris too, maybe if I have the time to look through the threads I might do that. I seldom have that much time on my hands.
Now, if you will not ignore it this time. Did you or did you not say that ‘if any Catholics make it to heaven, it would be only by the extreme mercy of God.’ If that’s not a statement of condemnation, I don’t know what is.
You have provided no reason, what so ever for me to reconsider my Catholic faith. Calling us ‘whores’ simply isn’t convincing.
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Perception has nothing to do with it. This is a deductive argument. It is true despite perception, realm, sense, other dimensions, whether this universe ever existed or not, period. What we perceive and causal relationships may be flawed by perception, but the causation itself it’s not.
Secondly, if you disprute causation, you undermine the very math behind String theory and anything else for that matter. Math is a representation of causal relationships. You undermine that, you got nothing.
This is not an inference, this not based on what is seen, felt, tasted, smelled or heard. This is pure deduction and it stands in the physical, metaphysical, hyper physical, kinda sorta physical, etc. Being able to imagine shit in other dimensions has no bearing what so ever on causation, zero, none, nada, niente, zed. >>>[/quote]Deduction, which is simply one formulaic manifestation of the law of non contradiction, is a relentlessly cruel intellectual master when exalted in the place of God. He will begrudgingly grant you probability at best and then snicker as he grants the same to those who hold views directly contradicted by your own thereby rendering literally anything possible and nothing certain.
Don’t get me wrong. Most of the protestant world agrees with YOU about how we approach knowledge in the first place. “Laws” of logic as perceived by my itty bitty mind and we reach for God from there. This is the watered down gasoline of the vehicle of contemporary Christendom. The church will continue to sputter along while she persists in filling her tank with ancient Greek fuel like Aquinas did.
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Now, if you will not ignore it this time. Did you or did you not say that ‘if any Catholics make it to heaven, it would be only by the extreme mercy of God.’ If that’s not a statement of condemnation, I don’t know what is.
You have provided no reason, what so ever for me to reconsider my Catholic faith. Calling us ‘whores’ simply isn’t convincing.[/quote]I have addressed every single you and Chris and Sloth have brought up multiple times each. Ya know what one of the main differences between you and I is? I pay attention to what you guys say. I can pretty much guess a lot of the time what you are going to say about something now by what you’ve already said. You continually demand answers from me for things I have written long detailed posts about already. Sometimes they are directly addressed to YOU.
You yell something at me “WHAT ABOUT ______________!!!”. I spend an hour composing a 14 inch detailed post you never respond to and then 2 days later here you are smirking about how I never answer anybody.
Once again. I have said and I stand by that WHOEVER winds up in heaven, it will be by the grace, mercy and unearned love of the gospel and God that I preach. That includes Catholics. Any former Catholics now in heaven, which I am inclined to believe there are some, already know this. The rest will find out, much to their joy.
I have never EVER said that I know the final state of any living person. For the now billionth time:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The very “perception” of causation, and the principles you assign to it are directly related to man’s experience with the universe as we know it. And we can all agree, WE DO NOT KNOW THE UNIVERSE. If you do not know the universe, causation as you perceive it, is not necessarily required.
Your very own scriptures speak of “eternal” yet you cannot imagine it or accept it, because apparently Pat requires a cause, and if there is a cause, there is a beginning. If there is a beginning, it was not eternal.
I’m open to the possibility that “it” was always here. I say “it” because we do not know the nature of this universe, if there is only one, if the universe is contained within something else, etc and so forth. [/quote]
Incorrect, you could have saved yourself the trouble if you read the link. It’s all addressed.
So, prove causation is not required. If you know I am wrong, then you should know this answer. If you are simply going to say we don’t know the universe, just don’t bother because it misses the point.[/quote]
I don’t have to read your assignment. I’m familiar with the arguments. YOU are not addressing or understanding MY point. The arguments contained on your page are STILL trapped in our perception of and experience with the universe.
So, prove causation is required. Go ahead, I’ll wait.[/quote]
So explaining to you that perception and experience is irrelevant simply doesn’t sink in? IT is irrelevant. It’s a deductive argument. Do you have any comprehension what the hell that means at all? Damn man, perception is absolutely irrelevant. If the universe did not exist, but something outside initial cause exists, then there is a reason why it exists, period. Maybe if I say ten times, it may penetrate your skull.
Perception is irrelevant to the argument.
For causation to be true, perceiving it would not matter.
Perceiving vs. not perceiving is irrelevant to the concept of causation.
Even if you cannot perceive causation, causation still exists.
If a bear shit in the woods, whether you perceive it or not, the bear still caused the shit.
If there was never a universe, never humans, never anything physical, causal properties would still exists.
If all the laws of physics happened in reverse, and nobody perceived it, causation would still be in play.
Perception of causation is not the same as causation itself therefore, perception is 100000000000000000000000000% irrelevant as to whether causation exists or not.
Whether you are alive or not, perception is does not matter as it pertains to causal relationships.
Not being able to see into other dimensions does not dismantle deductive truths. Deductive truths are what they are, period. There is nothing that can debunk it, if there is, it’s not true.
The principle of sufficient reason states that simply, no matter what it is, there is a sufficient reason for it’s existence.
or rather put:
The principle has a variety of expressions, all of which are perhaps best summarized by the following:
For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation why x exists.
For every event e, if e occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation why e occurs.
For every proposition p, if p is true, then there is a sufficient explanation why p is true.
or:
Principle of Sufficient Reason of Becoming
If a new state of one or several real objects appears, another state must have preceded it upon which the new state follows regularly.
Principle of Sufficient Reason of Knowing
If a judgment is to express a piece of knowledge, it must have a sufficient ground. By virtue of this quality, it receives the predicate true. Truth is therefore the reference of a judgment to something different therefrom.
Now this I cut and pasted from here:
Now with out saying you don’t know, prove it wrong.
Don’t say that ‘I’ don’t know, speak for yourself.
Quit telling me what I can and cannot know or think, because you don’t know what I know. If anybody has been condescending it’s been you somehow entering my brain and knowing what I know and don’t know? What I know, you don’t know is what I know.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Perception has nothing to do with it. This is a deductive argument. It is true despite perception, realm, sense, other dimensions, whether this universe ever existed or not, period. What we perceive and causal relationships may be flawed by perception, but the causation itself it’s not.
Secondly, if you disprute causation, you undermine the very math behind String theory and anything else for that matter. Math is a representation of causal relationships. You undermine that, you got nothing.
This is not an inference, this not based on what is seen, felt, tasted, smelled or heard. This is pure deduction and it stands in the physical, metaphysical, hyper physical, kinda sorta physical, etc. Being able to imagine shit in other dimensions has no bearing what so ever on causation, zero, none, nada, niente, zed. >>>[/quote]Deduction, which is simply one formulaic manifestation of the law of non contradiction, is a relentlessly cruel intellectual master when exalted in the place of God. He will begrudgingly grant you probability at best and then snicker as he grants the same to those who hold views directly contradicted by your own thereby rendering literally anything possible and nothing certain.
Don’t get me wrong. Most of the protestant world agrees with YOU about how we approach knowledge in the first place. “Laws” of logic as perceived by my itty bitty mind and we reach for God from there. This is the watered down gasoline of the vehicle of contemporary Christendom. The church will continue to sputter along while she persists in filling her tank with ancient Greek fuel like Aquinas did.
[/quote]
Tirib, this has nothing to do with scripture, it’s a completely different approch, but it still falls in to seeking truth. If you don’t believe truth that’s not my problem, but this is not incompatible with the scriptures nor is it meant in any way to replace God. It’s a different way of knowing him, and that’s all. If you think God is a dude with a long white beard. ok, I don’t care.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Simple question Pat. How did the universe spring into existence?[/quote]
Far as I know, the current theory is the big bang occurring some where between 13 and 15 billion years ago. Beyond that I don’t know…[/quote]
Oh, that was not very satisfying. What with all the references you posted and the blustering about causes and cosmology.
What preceded the big bang? What caused it?[/quote]
Exactly.
[/quote]
Clever answer. So “cause” caused it. LOL. Why don’t you answer the question?[/quote]
I don’t know what preceded the big bang. Could have been a ‘primordial soup’ of dark matter. It could have been 100,000,000 accordion universes preceding this one, or it could have been the first caused event.
[quote]pat wrote:Tirib, this has nothing to do with scripture, it’s a completely different approch, [/quote]It certainly doesn’t and it certainly is. [quote]pat wrote:but this is not incompatible with the scriptures [/quote]You definitely aren’t alone here. Like I say, many of my brethren, maybe most, who should know better, are with you. [quote]pat wrote:nor is it meant in any way to replace God. [/quote]Oh I know it isn’t meant to, but it does nonetheless [quote]pat wrote:It’s a different way of knowing him, [/quote]The triune God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Peter, Paul, James and John is known by all men in absolutely and comprehensively every last notion and fact of existence, actual and possible, I agree. But NOT through deduction. To believe that the eternal almighty God, who calls universes into existence by fiat command, can be displayed through the narrow boundaries of human deduction is the grand poobah of all fallacies. Steh cahlm thayar Patty (Irish brogue =] ) This here is not actually a Catholic vs. protestant thing at it’s roots. It’s the Greeks vs. the gospel.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:Tirib, this has nothing to do with scripture, it’s a completely different approch, [/quote]It certainly doesn’t and it certainly is. [quote]pat wrote:but this is not incompatible with the scriptures [/quote]You definitely aren’t alone here. Like I say, many of my brethren, maybe most, who should know better, are with you. [quote]pat wrote:nor is it meant in any way to replace God. [/quote]Oh I know it isn’t meant to, but it does nonetheless [quote]pat wrote:It’s a different way of knowing him, [/quote]The triune God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Peter, Paul, James and John is known by all men in absolutely and comprehensively every last notion and fact of existence, actual and possible, I agree. But NOT through deduction. To believe that the eternal almighty God, who calls universes into existence by fiat command, can be displayed through the narrow boundaries of human deduction is the grand poobah of all fallacies. Steh cahlm thayar Patty (Irish brogue =] ) This here is not actually a Catholic vs. protestant thing at it’s roots. It’s the Greeks vs. the gospel.
[/quote]
You are incorrect. It is one in the same, you cannot have have both an uncaused-cause and God too. They are one in the same. God was around way before Abraham.
If you think it’s incorrect, than prove why.
If you think it’s incompatible with scripture, then prove it. How is it incompatable with scripture?
[quote]pat wrote:<<< You are incorrect. It is one in the same, you cannot have have both an uncaused-cause and God too. They are one in the same. God was around way before Abraham.
If you think it’s incorrect, than prove why.
If you think it’s incompatible with scripture, then prove it. How is it incompatable with scripture?[/quote]Looky there, ya threw me a curve Pat. I figured you’d just yell at me. I didn’t figure you would ask me stuff like this. Hopefully more time later, but I was saying that people replace God with deduction and the laws of logic, not a prime mover. I don’t know where Abraham came in here, but I don’t have time to lay out my case at the moment. It won’t be anything new when I do.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< You are incorrect. It is one in the same, you cannot have have both an uncaused-cause and God too. They are one in the same. God was around way before Abraham.
If you think it’s incorrect, than prove why.
If you think it’s incompatible with scripture, then prove it. How is it incompatable with scripture?[/quote]Looky there, ya threw me a curve Pat. I figured you’d just yell at me. I didn’t figure you would ask me stuff like this. Hopefully more time later, but I was saying that people replace God with deduction and the laws of logic, not a prime mover. I don’t know where Abraham came in here, but I don’t have time to lay out my case at the moment. It won’t be anything new when I do.
[/quote]
I have never “yelled” except when you call my faith a whore, of Satan, evil, etc. Here’s the dill, pickle, nothing is replaced. It is totally congruent. God is not present only in divinely inspired scripture, he is alive in everything he creates. Let the genie out of the bottle, i.e. release God from the prison of scripture only. He is alive now, today. Scripture tells you about God, but not everything. God doesn’t exist in text between pages. His creation reflects Him who created it all.
Ok, now this is what I’m talkin about. 2 posts ago I said this:[quote]The triune God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Peter, Paul, James and John is known by all men in absolutely and comprehensively every last notion and fact of existence, actual and possible,[/quote] and you say this: [quote]God doesn’t exist in text between pages. His creation reflects Him who created it all. [/quote] as if I hadn’t.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Any former Catholics
[/quote]
Why do you call them former Catholics, perhaps you are wrong and perhaps the Holy Ghost has stayed with the Bride, and perhaps Jesus did mean that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the divine part of the Church, which is the teaching which is the truth.
Presumption of salvation without merit is a capital sin against the Holy Ghost.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:Tirib, this has nothing to do with scripture, it’s a completely different approch, [/quote]It certainly doesn’t and it certainly is. [quote]pat wrote:but this is not incompatible with the scriptures [/quote]You definitely aren’t alone here. Like I say, many of my brethren, maybe most, who should know better, are with you. [quote]pat wrote:nor is it meant in any way to replace God. [/quote]Oh I know it isn’t meant to, but it does nonetheless [quote]pat wrote:It’s a different way of knowing him, [/quote]The triune God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Peter, Paul, James and John is known by all men in absolutely and comprehensively every last notion and fact of existence, actual and possible, I agree. But NOT through deduction. To believe that the eternal almighty God, who calls universes into existence by fiat command, can be displayed through the narrow boundaries of human deduction is the grand poobah of all fallacies. Steh cahlm thayar Patty (Irish brogue =] ) This here is not actually a Catholic vs. protestant thing at it’s roots. It’s the Greeks vs. the gospel.
[/quote]
You condemned me the other day for having Zeal without knowledge, then you condemn someone else for searching for the truth as the Greeks did…you do realize that the Septuagint was in Greek, that the Jews with which Jesus came from were Hellenistic Jews. All truth is from G-d, what is wrong with finding truth in which ever way we can find G-d?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
as if I hadn’t.[/quote]
Then why do you only use a select cross section of what G-d has revealed to His faithful (a la the Bible)? G-d is revealed in all, but G-d has directly revealed Himself through His Word (who is a person, Jesus) and St. John tells us that the universe could not hold all of the books with which to describe what Jesus did. The teachers tell us to listen to their teachings both oral and written. Yet, you claim only the Bible, and I have not seen a verse that can be used to say Sola Scriptura.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat,
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, not sure if you saw my post since you’ve argued a couple times since then that your conclusions on causality are deductive. According to Hume, they are actually inductive, which makes sense when you think about it. Deduction requires knowledge of the entire universe, and at best we can only induce based on observations in our little corner of the universe.
Tiribulus agrees witih me that you can’t find god through logic or evidence, but unfortunately he has no answer to which god one is supposed to find when you forego reason. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, men who surrender reason become the sport of every wind. Gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.