Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
541

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you’re confusing descriptive attributes with the thing itself. Matter and energy are the same stuff, expressed in different ways. If you create light and heat by burning wood, are you really creating energy? No. You’re transforming matter into energy.

You can’t hang your logical hat on the idea that elemental particles can only remain as such in order to be uncaused. The essential argument is that the stuff we call matter/energy is uncaused. Light and heat don’t have charge or spin, but they are the same stuff expressed in a different form.

You have yet to provide any compelling logic or evidence to disprove the laws of conservation, which state that MATTER/ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED.

Please address this point. If it can’t be created, how can it’s existence be caused? It’s impossible, and the only logical conclusion is that it’s existence is uncaused. That’s not circular reasoning, it is a direct expression of scientific facts.[/quote]

Matter may have always existed. But did life always exist?

542

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you’re confusing descriptive attributes with the thing itself. Matter and energy are the same stuff, expressed in different ways. If you create light and heat by burning wood, are you really creating energy? No. You’re transforming matter into energy.

You can’t hang your logical hat on the idea that elemental particles can only remain as such in order to be uncaused. The essential argument is that the stuff we call matter/energy is uncaused. Light and heat don’t have charge or spin, but they are the same stuff expressed in a different form.

You have yet to provide any compelling logic or evidence to disprove the laws of conservation, which state that MATTER/ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED.

Please address this point. If it can’t be created, how can it’s existence be caused? It’s impossible, and the only logical conclusion is that it’s existence is uncaused. That’s not circular reasoning, it is a direct expression of scientific facts.[/quote]

I am not confusing anything. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not disputing the laws of conservation, nor have I ever. It’s still doesn’t matter because your stuck in this idea that anything that has always existed, exists uncaused, and that is simply not true. Causes do not have to precede their effects. That’s where your are making your mistake. It’s dependencies render it caused, PERIOD. There is no way around this. I don’t need a 3rd grade science lesson to understand conservation. It’s problem that drives a lot of people nuts.
As long as it has contingencies, dependencies, and/ or is governed it’s caused. Being around forever does not matter in anyway shape or form.

543

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Forlife, you have at it with him. I lost interest. He’s not thinking outside his own box. EVERY argument he makes relies upon his perception of man’s existence in the universe. EVERY SINGLE UTTERANCE.

I’ll return when you can get him to apply his “logical” process to religion. I want to be part of that. Until then, I have lost interest. Good day gents. [/quote]

Sucks to be wrong…

544

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

EXISTENCE AS YOU KNOW IT MUST BE CAUSED. PERIOD. WE CAN SAY NO MORE.[/quote]

Not “WE”, YOU. Don’t speak for me, I’ve done my homework. If you cannot see beyond you’re little two dimensional ‘I only know what exists by my five senses’, that ain’t my problem.

Here’s the problem, I can make a better argument for the ‘Necessary Being’ than you can about yourself. You cannot make a deductive argument for your own existence because you only know it by perception. Not only is it real, it’s more real than you are.

And look who’s shouting now Mr. Angry man…[/quote]

This is ironic. You’re stuck in newtownian physics and you’re claiming that I am stuck in my 5 senses - which is exactly how I feel about your arguments. [/quote]

Newtonian Physics? Point out one newtonian construct I ever even mentioned. I don’t give a rat’s ass how you feel, you’re to damn thick to get this concept. It doesn’t describe physics exclusively, physics is a slave to it , not the other way around. Perception is irrelevant. The argument stands whether you are in this universe of not. 10 years from now, you’ll still be wrong unless you learn.

545

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you’re confusing descriptive attributes with the thing itself. Matter and energy are the same stuff, expressed in different ways. If you create light and heat by burning wood, are you really creating energy? No. You’re transforming matter into energy.

You can’t hang your logical hat on the idea that elemental particles can only remain as such in order to be uncaused. The essential argument is that the stuff we call matter/energy is uncaused. Light and heat don’t have charge or spin, but they are the same stuff expressed in a different form.

You have yet to provide any compelling logic or evidence to disprove the laws of conservation, which state that MATTER/ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED.

Please address this point. If it can’t be created, how can it’s existence be caused? It’s impossible, and the only logical conclusion is that it’s existence is uncaused. That’s not circular reasoning, it is a direct expression of scientific facts.[/quote]

Matter may have always existed. But did life always exist?[/quote]

That’s a different argument all together. But if you believe in God and that he is life, then yes, it’s been around forever.

546

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Forlife, you have at it with him. I lost interest. He’s not thinking outside his own box. EVERY argument he makes relies upon his perception of man’s existence in the universe. EVERY SINGLE UTTERANCE.

I’ll return when you can get him to apply his “logical” process to religion. I want to be part of that. Until then, I have lost interest. Good day gents. [/quote]

Sucks to be wrong…[/quote]

yawn

547

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

EXISTENCE AS YOU KNOW IT MUST BE CAUSED. PERIOD. WE CAN SAY NO MORE.[/quote]

Not “WE”, YOU. Don’t speak for me, I’ve done my homework. If you cannot see beyond you’re little two dimensional ‘I only know what exists by my five senses’, that ain’t my problem.

Here’s the problem, I can make a better argument for the ‘Necessary Being’ than you can about yourself. You cannot make a deductive argument for your own existence because you only know it by perception. Not only is it real, it’s more real than you are.

And look who’s shouting now Mr. Angry man…[/quote]

This is ironic. You’re stuck in newtownian physics and you’re claiming that I am stuck in my 5 senses - which is exactly how I feel about your arguments. [/quote]

Newtonian Physics? Point out one newtonian construct I ever even mentioned. I don’t give a rat’s ass how you feel, you’re to damn thick to get this concept. It doesn’t describe physics exclusively, physics is a slave to it , not the other way around. Perception is irrelevant. The argument stands whether you are in this universe of not. 10 years from now, you’ll still be wrong unless you learn. [/quote]

have at it with forelife. i’m uninterested. the fact is, i get everything you’re saying…every word of it. i do not agree. and every point you’ve argued is a reflection of your existence and perception, from the language you use to the ideas in your head to the “logic” you employ. everything. you’re too thick to get that. i don’t have the energy for this, or the desire anymore. i simply do not care. do it with forelife.

548

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

EXISTENCE AS YOU KNOW IT MUST BE CAUSED. PERIOD. WE CAN SAY NO MORE.[/quote]

Not “WE”, YOU. Don’t speak for me, I’ve done my homework. If you cannot see beyond you’re little two dimensional ‘I only know what exists by my five senses’, that ain’t my problem.

Here’s the problem, I can make a better argument for the ‘Necessary Being’ than you can about yourself. You cannot make a deductive argument for your own existence because you only know it by perception. Not only is it real, it’s more real than you are.

And look who’s shouting now Mr. Angry man…[/quote]

This is ironic. You’re stuck in newtownian physics and you’re claiming that I am stuck in my 5 senses - which is exactly how I feel about your arguments. [/quote]

Newtonian Physics? Point out one newtonian construct I ever even mentioned. I don’t give a rat’s ass how you feel, you’re to damn thick to get this concept. It doesn’t describe physics exclusively, physics is a slave to it , not the other way around. Perception is irrelevant. The argument stands whether you are in this universe of not. 10 years from now, you’ll still be wrong unless you learn. [/quote]

have at it with forelife. i’m uninterested. the fact is, i get everything you’re saying…every word of it. i do not agree. and every point you’ve argued is a reflection of your existence and perception, from the language you use to the ideas in your head to the “logic” you employ. everything. you’re too thick to get that. i don’t have the energy for this, or the desire anymore. i simply do not care. do it with forelife. [/quote]

Okay, we know you have to get the last word already! Quit yawning and uninterestedly engaging in the discussion and do what you said were going to do three posts ago!

549

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

EXISTENCE AS YOU KNOW IT MUST BE CAUSED. PERIOD. WE CAN SAY NO MORE.[/quote]

Not “WE”, YOU. Don’t speak for me, I’ve done my homework. If you cannot see beyond you’re little two dimensional ‘I only know what exists by my five senses’, that ain’t my problem.

Here’s the problem, I can make a better argument for the ‘Necessary Being’ than you can about yourself. You cannot make a deductive argument for your own existence because you only know it by perception. Not only is it real, it’s more real than you are.

And look who’s shouting now Mr. Angry man…[/quote]

This is ironic. You’re stuck in newtownian physics and you’re claiming that I am stuck in my 5 senses - which is exactly how I feel about your arguments. [/quote]

Newtonian Physics? Point out one newtonian construct I ever even mentioned. I don’t give a rat’s ass how you feel, you’re to damn thick to get this concept. It doesn’t describe physics exclusively, physics is a slave to it , not the other way around. Perception is irrelevant. The argument stands whether you are in this universe of not. 10 years from now, you’ll still be wrong unless you learn. [/quote]

have at it with forelife. i’m uninterested. the fact is, i get everything you’re saying…every word of it. i do not agree. and every point you’ve argued is a reflection of your existence and perception, from the language you use to the ideas in your head to the “logic” you employ. everything. you’re too thick to get that. i don’t have the energy for this, or the desire anymore. i simply do not care. do it with forelife. [/quote]

Okay, we know you have to get the last word already! Quit yawning and uninterestedly engaging in the discussion and do what you said were going to do three posts ago![/quote]

Did you just add anything to the discussion? Or is this like some weird obsessive stalking-me kinda thing? Or, are you really hanging from his nuts? Seriously? What are you, Flava Flav, the hype man…yeeeeaaaaahhhh booooooooy. Fucking weirdo.

550

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you’re confusing descriptive attributes with the thing itself. Matter and energy are the same stuff, expressed in different ways. If you create light and heat by burning wood, are you really creating energy? No. You’re transforming matter into energy.

You can’t hang your logical hat on the idea that elemental particles can only remain as such in order to be uncaused. The essential argument is that the stuff we call matter/energy is uncaused. Light and heat don’t have charge or spin, but they are the same stuff expressed in a different form.

You have yet to provide any compelling logic or evidence to disprove the laws of conservation, which state that MATTER/ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED.

Please address this point. If it can’t be created, how can it’s existence be caused? It’s impossible, and the only logical conclusion is that it’s existence is uncaused. That’s not circular reasoning, it is a direct expression of scientific facts.[/quote]

I am not confusing anything. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not disputing the laws of conservation, nor have I ever. It’s still doesn’t matter because your stuck in this idea that anything that has always existed, exists uncaused, and that is simply not true. Causes do not have to precede their effects. That’s where your are making your mistake. It’s dependencies render it caused, PERIOD. There is no way around this. I don’t need a 3rd grade science lesson to understand conservation. It’s problem that drives a lot of people nuts.
As long as it has contingencies, dependencies, and/ or is governed it’s caused. Being around forever does not matter in anyway shape or form.[/quote]

First off, contingencies are not descriptive attributes. That’s where you’re getting confused. It’s a logical flaw, and you’re not applying it consistently. Use the identical argument for god, and you’ll see the logical flaw. If attributes prove contingency, the attributes of god prove that god is a contingent being. Obviously you don’t believe that, so you can’t claim that attributes prove contingency.

I’m not talking about matter/energy always existing. I’m talking about it being IMPOSSIBLE TO CREATE MATTER/ENERGY. If it can’t be created, it is definitionally NONCONTINGENT.

551

Hey bodyguard there is a known that we can start from and make deductive arguments from regardless of how distorted our perception of reality may be or whether there are 11 dimensions when we can only grasp 3-4 at best and that known is that existence exist and you can make deductions from that as pat has posted many times in different ways.

I find it strange how you are always bringing up math and TP as being higher than logic and dismissive of causality when anything taken seriously in math must come from deduction, anything taken seriously in the sciences comes from a mixture of induction and deduction and the whole of sciences hinges on causality however strange and convoluted it may appear in some of the sciences.

552

This is forlife who is always bringing up the law of conservation of matter and energy. This is a small transcript from the radio show called “Let my People Think” where John Lennox is responding to some of the claims Stephen Hawking makes in his new book but the response(and even the whole radio show) is applicable to you.

John Lennox: “Laws of nature are abstract and they depend on the prior existence of a nature for which they are laws, so that to call them god in any sense and as responsible for nature is just very very confused indeed.”. Even the laws of nature are contingent and do not exist in and of themselves.

(if your interested in listening to this radio program ill put two links below.)
http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/letmypeoplethink.aspx?archive=1

edited

553

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
This is forlife who is always bringing up the law of conservation of matter and energy. This is a small transcript from the radio show called “Let my People Think” where John Lennox is responding to some of the claims Stephen Hawking makes in his new book but the response(any even the whole radio) is applicable to you.

John Lennox: “Laws of nature are abstract and they depend on the prior existence of a nature for which they are laws, so that to call them god in any sense and as responsible for nature is just very very confused indeed.”. Even the laws of nature are contingent and do exist in themselves.

(if your interested in listening to this radio program ill put two links below.)
http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/letmypeoplethink.aspx?archive=1[/quote]

I don’t know who he’s addressing, since I’m not claiming the laws of nature are god or are responsible for nature. The laws are nothing more than a description of nature.

554

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you’re confusing descriptive attributes with the thing itself. Matter and energy are the same stuff, expressed in different ways. If you create light and heat by burning wood, are you really creating energy? No. You’re transforming matter into energy.

You can’t hang your logical hat on the idea that elemental particles can only remain as such in order to be uncaused. The essential argument is that the stuff we call matter/energy is uncaused. Light and heat don’t have charge or spin, but they are the same stuff expressed in a different form.

You have yet to provide any compelling logic or evidence to disprove the laws of conservation, which state that MATTER/ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED.

Please address this point. If it can’t be created, how can it’s existence be caused? It’s impossible, and the only logical conclusion is that it’s existence is uncaused. That’s not circular reasoning, it is a direct expression of scientific facts.[/quote]

I am not confusing anything. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not disputing the laws of conservation, nor have I ever. It’s still doesn’t matter because your stuck in this idea that anything that has always existed, exists uncaused, and that is simply not true. Causes do not have to precede their effects. That’s where your are making your mistake. It’s dependencies render it caused, PERIOD. There is no way around this. I don’t need a 3rd grade science lesson to understand conservation. It’s problem that drives a lot of people nuts.
As long as it has contingencies, dependencies, and/ or is governed it’s caused. Being around forever does not matter in anyway shape or form.[/quote]

First off, contingencies are not descriptive attributes. That’s where you’re getting confused. It’s a logical flaw, and you’re not applying it consistently. Use the identical argument for god, and you’ll see the logical flaw. If attributes prove contingency, the attributes of god prove that god is a contingent being. Obviously you don’t believe that, so you can’t claim that attributes prove contingency.

I’m not talking about matter/energy always existing. I’m talking about it being IMPOSSIBLE TO CREATE MATTER/ENERGY. If it can’t be created, it is definitionally NONCONTINGENT.[/quote]

No contingencies are attributes of dependency, for X to exist if must have Y and Z, if either Y or Z are missing, X does not exist. X is contingent on Y and Z, therefore dependent and therefore also somewhat descriptive of the containing object, but description really doesn’t matter.
CREATING matter and energy is not relevant for it to be caused. Any causal event existing outside of time has technically always existed, but the are all still contingent. Matter is thought to be made of energy energy consists of information. It’s that, that is actually not lost, not matter or energy specifically, but that what makes it up, this elusive ‘information’ the building blocks of energy, which can become matter, which become everything else.

There are just to many issues with extrapolating Laws of Conservation to be the end all, be all. First of all, wasnâ??t meant to describe all that ever is and was. It is to describe current states. That doesn’t mean you cannot use the present state of things to describe the past, you just have to be sure it’s applicable first. Second, conservation laws only work in a closed system. The jury is still out, but many believe the universe is an open system because it’s accelerating seemingly infinite expansion and the fact that it gains mass all the time. Even in a closed system, it is thought that energy can leak. Which is actually a theory, too.
Lastly, matter and energy cannot do anything on it’s own, it has to be acted upon to do stuff.
Matter and energy may be eternal, but they are most certainly contingent.

And quit yelling.

555

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Hey bodyguard there is a known that we can start from and make deductive arguments from regardless of how distorted our perception of reality may be or whether there are 11 dimensions when we can only grasp 3-4 at best and that known is that existence exist and you can make deductions from that as pat has posted many times in different ways.

I find it strange how you are always bringing up math and TP as being higher than logic and dismissive of causality when anything taken seriously in math must come from deduction, anything taken seriously in the sciences comes from a mixture of induction and deduction and the whole of sciences hinges on causality however strange and convoluted it may appear in some of the sciences.[/quote]

The irony of using the string theory and the math behind it to posit information beyond our perceptions while in the same breath saying I cannot know anything beyond my own perception is not lost on me.

556

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
This is forlife who is always bringing up the law of conservation of matter and energy. This is a small transcript from the radio show called “Let my People Think” where John Lennox is responding to some of the claims Stephen Hawking makes in his new book but the response(any even the whole radio) is applicable to you.

John Lennox: “Laws of nature are abstract and they depend on the prior existence of a nature for which they are laws, so that to call them god in any sense and as responsible for nature is just very very confused indeed.”. Even the laws of nature are contingent and do exist in themselves.

(if your interested in listening to this radio program ill put two links below.)
http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/letmypeoplethink.aspx?archive=1[/quote]

I don’t know who he’s addressing, since I’m not claiming the laws of nature are god or are responsible for nature. The laws are nothing more than a description of nature.[/quote]

It describes what nature does and must do, not what it is…

557

[quote]pat wrote:<<< What point is that? I am afraid your not being very clear. Perhaps if you deflower your language and speak plainly, I can make out what your saying. I guess I am just slow. >>>[/quote][quote]pat wrote:Yesterday you said that it is idolatry and an abomination to know God the way Aristotle did, which is by logic, which is all he had. Now your saying he exists in everything?
So I am confused by your stance, If God exists in everything that is, is it bad to know him in that way? Why? Or is that not what you are saying? I just need clarification. [/quote]These are fair and honest questions to which, as you no doubt guessed, I have answers. Hopefully later. For now, I am not saying He exists in everything in the pantheistic sense of Him BEING everything. I am saying what Paul is saying in the 1st of Romans. God is REVEALED in everything and especially in man himself as man bears His directly created image. Everything. Absolutely and comprehensively EVERYTHING, including the scornful attacks of unbelievers unavoidably testify to, not the existence of a prime mover, but the LORD GOD almighty in all His triune majesty.

Men like Aristotle, carrying the remaining and sin scarred image of God and have no choice but to see His signature everywhere, especially in themselves. They are hence without excuse and worthy of Judgment for denying Him. Paul says so. In the darkness of their dead hearts and minds however, they formulate God dishonoring theories of reality that reduce him to logical abstractions void of any moral authority over themselves. An uncaused first cause cannot demand obedience.

Van Til uses the imperfect analogy of a man who’s had his eyes put out. Though blind he cannot escape the memories of all the things he saw while he had his eyes. To comfort himself he simply denies he ever had eyes or saw anything. Fallen man is tattooed with the image of God remaining from father Adam. While he is warped, twisted and yes dead, he nevertheless cannot escape who and what he is. He is trapped seeing everywhere, including his mirror, the God who he denies, but is unable and unwilling (in that order) in his sin to acknowledge his own creatureliness and moral responsibility to the God he knows down inside is there.

gotta go

558

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Hey bodyguard there is a known that we can start from and make deductive arguments from regardless of how distorted our perception of reality may be or whether there are 11 dimensions when we can only grasp 3-4 at best and that known is that existence exist and you can make deductions from that as pat has posted many times in different ways.

I find it strange how you are always bringing up math and TP as being higher than logic and dismissive of causality when anything taken seriously in math must come from deduction, anything taken seriously in the sciences comes from a mixture of induction and deduction and the whole of sciences hinges on causality however strange and convoluted it may appear in some of the sciences.[/quote]

“Existence” as you put it is an unknown. All that you know is that you are alive today, this moment. You do not know from where you came, or where you are going. Everything about your “existence” shapes your perception of even your logic and ideas. Even your idea of what “causality” is. Like I’ve said before, more than once, if everything is just energy and matter, on its way somewhere and constantly changing, there does not need to be a beginning (or cause) or an end.

When I bring up math and TP, I’m pointing out that the many theories espoused by TP cannot be “groked” by man - only mathematically.

Every idea you have about your existence and “causality” is shaped by your existence and limited perception of the universe. We know that “causality” breaks down at the quantum level; what makes you think “causality” is therefore the rule of the yet unknown universe?

559

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Hey bodyguard there is a known that we can start from and make deductive arguments from regardless of how distorted our perception of reality may be or whether there are 11 dimensions when we can only grasp 3-4 at best and that known is that existence exist and you can make deductions from that as pat has posted many times in different ways.

I find it strange how you are always bringing up math and TP as being higher than logic and dismissive of causality when anything taken seriously in math must come from deduction, anything taken seriously in the sciences comes from a mixture of induction and deduction and the whole of sciences hinges on causality however strange and convoluted it may appear in some of the sciences.[/quote]

The irony of using the string theory and the math behind it to posit information beyond our perceptions while in the same breath saying I cannot know anything beyond my own perception is not lost on me.[/quote]

Your reading comprehension fail not lost on me.

560

It’s also not lost on me that Patrick will never concede any ground on causality because the very nature of a first cause fits right into his religious belief system and God. He’s no more going to infringe on his belief system than he would willingly let me violate his wife.