See, I can do references too. But the following had no bearing on my opinions. My own intellect took me to my opinions.
"What caused the First Cause?
One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.[13] The problem with arguing for the First Cause’s exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.[14]
Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori (deductively). However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.[15] Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[13]"
In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience…bears repeating and is essentially what I have been saying. And when I reference string theory and such, I am further illustrating how the universe MAY work which is wildly beyond our experience.
EVERY thought you have, theory you can imagine, language and label you can use, is the direct result and limitation of your experience with the universe.
"The cosmological argument is mostly dismissed in the scientific field due to its highly speculative nature. The theory is said to assume many aspects of how the universe came to be without scientific analysis, rather a monotheistic religious outlook. Most scientists argue that “God” is not a scientifically proven cause, considering current acceptable evidence does not verify a deityâ??s existence.
It is argued that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time, “One finds that time just disappears from the Wheelerâ??DeWitt equation”[cite this quote] - Carlo Rovelli. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time.[27] Then, the question “What was there before the Universe?” makes no sense; the concept of “before” becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.[27] This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[27] However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of membranes to give a cause for the Big Bang.[28]"
You see ladies and gentlemen, the cosmological argument that Patrick is married to is actually a religious argument. It is not generally accepted, it is not fact, no matter how many times he plays mumbo jumbo with big words and no matter how many times he jumps up and down and yells.
Aint it fucking amazing how I just about argued what I quoted in my last two posts without ever having read any of it? Whereas, our young hero Patrick, is plagiarizing left and right from his references.
It’s not very interesting to have a debate with a closed mind. And when it comes to religion, that’s what you find - closed minds.
"The cosmological argument is mostly dismissed in the scientific field due to its highly speculative nature. The theory is said to assume many aspects of how the universe came to be without scientific analysis, rather a monotheistic religious outlook. Most scientists argue that “God” is not a scientifically proven cause, considering current acceptable evidence does not verify a deityâ??s existence.
It is argued that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time, “One finds that time just disappears from the Wheelerâ??DeWitt equation”[cite this quote] - Carlo Rovelli. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time.[27] Then, the question “What was there before the Universe?” makes no sense; the concept of “before” becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.[27] This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[27] However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of membranes to give a cause for the Big Bang.[28]"
You see ladies and gentlemen, the cosmological argument that Patrick is married to is actually a religious argument. It is not generally accepted, it is not fact, no matter how many times he plays mumbo jumbo with big words and no matter how many times he jumps up and down and yells.
Aint it fucking amazing how I just about argued what I quoted in my last two posts without ever having read any of it? Whereas, our young hero Patrick, is plagiarizing left and right from his references.
It’s not very interesting to have a debate with a closed mind. And when it comes to religion, that’s what you find - closed minds.[/quote]
If you are going to quote stuff you should probably say where it came from (lest you plagiarize). Just trying to help you maintain that squeaky clean image.
[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
[/quote]
Yeah, I hardly understood a word you said. I asked you to stop with the fancy language and speak simply. I still do not understand how Aristotle, a man who put forth more good scholarly work by the grace of G-d on the subject of theology and morals than anyone else, is a pagan.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< It’s not very interesting to have a debate with a closed mind. And when it comes to religion, that’s what you find - closed minds.[/quote]Then why are ya doin it? Fer like days now? Jist wonderin.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
See, I can do references too. But the following had no bearing on my opinions. My own intellect took me to my opinions.
"What caused the First Cause?
One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.[13] The problem with arguing for the First Cause’s exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.[14]
Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori (deductively). However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.[15] Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[13]"
In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience…bears repeating and is essentially what I have been saying. And when I reference string theory and such, I am further illustrating how the universe MAY work which is wildly beyond our experience.
EVERY thought you have, theory you can imagine, language and label you can use, is the direct result and limitation of your experience with the universe.
[/quote]
It has already been established in philosophy that an infinite regression is part of a logical fallacy. It will beg the question, “and what moved that?” An unmoved mover is needed for causal relation because it will beg the question, and “what moved that?” The reason why the unmoved mover is not moved is because nothing is superior to the unmoved mover. It is not subject to anything else, there is nothing outside of it.
"The cosmological argument is mostly dismissed in the scientific field due to its highly speculative nature. The theory is said to assume many aspects of how the universe came to be without scientific analysis, rather a monotheistic religious outlook. Most scientists argue that “God” is not a scientifically proven cause, considering current acceptable evidence does not verify a deityÃ?¢??s existence.
It is argued that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time, “One finds that time just disappears from the WheelerÃ?¢??DeWitt equation”[cite this quote] - Carlo Rovelli. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time.[27] Then, the question “What was there before the Universe?” makes no sense; the concept of “before” becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.[27] This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[27] However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of membranes to give a cause for the Big Bang.[28]"
You see ladies and gentlemen, the cosmological argument that Patrick is married to is actually a religious argument. It is not generally accepted, it is not fact, no matter how many times he plays mumbo jumbo with big words and no matter how many times he jumps up and down and yells.
Aint it fucking amazing how I just about argued what I quoted in my last two posts without ever having read any of it? Whereas, our young hero Patrick, is plagiarizing left and right from his references.
It’s not very interesting to have a debate with a closed mind. And when it comes to religion, that’s what you find - closed minds.[/quote]
If you are going to quote stuff you should probably say where it came from (lest you plagiarize). Just trying to help you maintain that squeaky clean image.[/quote]
They both came up on a simple search for “case against causality” and wiki was one of the first hits. I’m not much on “references” because as I said earlier, nothing I was arguing was “taught” to me or read somewhere else. These are things I reflected on prior and faults I found with Patrick’s unyielding position. I understood EVERYTHING he was arguing. What I didn’t immediately understand was how closely tied his position was to his religious believes. That only became apparent later. And that makes further discussion meaningless.
Here I am saying we simply do not know, that there are other possibilities. And there you have Patrick, dismissing anything that does not agree with him and his contested references. Acting as if he is providing irrefutable facts. He attaches fancy labels to his arguments to obfuscate the basic principles of the debate itself.
He completely ignores, or simply does not get how we “experience” the universe may be the game changer. That he won’t even begrudgingly acknowledge the possibility is not borne out of some superior intellect as he would like to fancy himself, but out of closed minded stubbornness built upon the foundation of “faith”.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< It’s not very interesting to have a debate with a closed mind. And when it comes to religion, that’s what you find - closed minds.[/quote]Then why are ya doin it? Fer like days now? Jist wonderin.
[/quote]
You are correct. I’m pretty much done. It took me a bit to reach that conclusion. You guys have chased away all the non-believers. Good discussion LOL
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
See, I can do references too. But the following had no bearing on my opinions. My own intellect took me to my opinions.
"What caused the First Cause?
One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.[13] The problem with arguing for the First Cause’s exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.[14]
Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori (deductively). However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.[15] Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[13]"
In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience…bears repeating and is essentially what I have been saying. And when I reference string theory and such, I am further illustrating how the universe MAY work which is wildly beyond our experience.
EVERY thought you have, theory you can imagine, language and label you can use, is the direct result and limitation of your experience with the universe.
[/quote]
It has already been established in philosophy that an infinite regression is part of a logical fallacy. It will beg the question, “and what moved that?” An unmoved mover is needed for causal relation because it will beg the question, and “what moved that?” The reason why the unmoved mover is not moved is because nothing is superior to the unmoved mover. It is not subject to anything else, there is nothing outside of it.[/quote]
Stop. Nothing is “established” by philosophy. We are talking science here, not philosophy. And philosophy is squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe. Your perception of “mover”, “causal”, etc. is all a reflection of your experience with the universe, which is limited. That your experience with the universe is severely limited is not even subject to serious debate. It’s a fact.
Infinite regress as a fallacy is rooted solely in philosophy, not physics. It has been theorized that the topology of the universe may be flat, which would allow for an infinite universe - other than some math formulas, that’s about the only use of “infinity” in physics. So if the rebuttal to causation has been based upon our limited and faulty experience with the universe, how is philosophy - a wholly human endeavor based on our minds and experience, instructive here? It’s not.
And isn’t any “regression” rooted in our experience in “time”? To regress, implies going back in time - following an arrow of time. We do not yet understand time, but forgive me if I give credence to this guy over Patrick and his rants: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/
Essentially what this TP who is studying time posits, is that if you remove the ARROW OF TIME, there is no causality. Such a static universe has already been theorized. You can certainly argue that OUR OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE had a cause but we do not yet know the limits of this universe or, if other universes, and static universes such as those theorized exist.
So while Pat jumps up and down and screams and attempts to talk down to people, we simply do not know. Period. End game. It is only religion and concepts of God that require an ultimate mover or cause.
[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
[/quote]
Much more clear, thanks.
So disagreements abound as you can guess. To testify to said Prime Mover is to testify to God. The simplicity of which does him honor. Let’s say that if faith is a sixth sense, then logic would be a seventh and not less important. He wasn’t a fallen Jew who once had divine revelation denied it and replaced it with logic. Nor was he even proposing a religious proposition. It was a simple fact derived at the very birth of logic. I cannot see how he sinned in anyway, shape or form, here. Paul says that those who have not the law are not bound by it. He did not have it. If he ever knew who Jews were it was a distant knowledge.
Further he did have a choice he could have ignored it, not cared or seen and denied it, but he didn’t. He was interested in what is the reality of all things and sought the truth about them. Where is the harm? Where is the sin? There was no replacing.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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. [/quote]
I don’t have to give up any ground what so ever; I am on quite solid logical ground. Why would I? I am not going to be bullied in the fallacious thinking just cause you really, really wanna beat me.
"The cosmological argument is mostly dismissed in the scientific field due to its highly speculative nature. The theory is said to assume many aspects of how the universe came to be without scientific analysis, rather a monotheistic religious outlook. Most scientists argue that “God” is not a scientifically proven cause, considering current acceptable evidence does not verify a deityâ??s existence.
It is argued that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time, “One finds that time just disappears from the Wheelerâ??DeWitt equation”[cite this quote] - Carlo Rovelli. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time.[27] Then, the question “What was there before the Universe?” makes no sense; the concept of “before” becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.[27] This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[27] However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of membranes to give a cause for the Big Bang.[28]"
You see ladies and gentlemen, the cosmological argument that Patrick is married to is actually a religious argument. It is not generally accepted, it is not fact, no matter how many times he plays mumbo jumbo with big words and no matter how many times he jumps up and down and yells.
Aint it fucking amazing how I just about argued what I quoted in my last two posts without ever having read any of it? Whereas, our young hero Patrick, is plagiarizing left and right from his references.
It’s not very interesting to have a debate with a closed mind. And when it comes to religion, that’s what you find - closed minds.[/quote]
That’s all sweet and cute, but it’s not a scientific argument, nor is it religious. It is plain jane deductive logic.
Scientists using science to take on religion are all arguing and theorizing against one thing and one thing only, causation. Except as much as they try, that can’t do it.
This persistent thought that causation requires time is just incorrect. It does not, causation exists in metaphysics too, where there is no time, and yet there is causation still, with out matter or energy being present.
He is correct in saying what came before is fallacious where time does not exist, but it does not mean it’s not caused. It just means there is no time. That problem was actually solved 700 years ago by Thomas Aquinas. Time ordered causation does not end it, it’s one form, the one we’re used to, but beyond our senses and perception there is more.
The problem with disproving deductive arguments with empirical evidence and theories, is that it falls under the humian view of successive events in that you must know absolutely all of them to be 100% true.
This is not true with deduction.
The link I gave you which you said you read, predebunked everything you said.
And your Appeal to authority, won’t change anything. Because big important people say things doesn’t make it true.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Yeah, I hardly understood a word you said. I asked you to stop with the fancy language and speak simply. I still do not understand how Aristotle, a man who put forth more good scholarly work by the grace of G-d on the subject of theology and morals than anyone else, is a pagan.
[/quote]Have you read Aristotle? You said you’re reading the Summa Theologica. And you’re complaining about MY fancy language? Look. I talk like I type for the most part. I am absolutely not trying to lose you and none of you guys are dummies. I don’t know exactly what to do with this, by which I mean no denigration to any whatsoever. You and Pat are being sincere though and I take you seriously.
They both came up on a simple search for “case against causality” and wiki was one of the first hits. I’m not much on “references” because as I said earlier, nothing I was arguing was “taught” to me or read somewhere else. These are things I reflected on prior and faults I found with Patrick’s unyielding position. I understood EVERYTHING he was arguing. What I didn’t immediately understand was how closely tied his position was to his religious believes. That only became apparent later. And that makes further discussion meaningless.
Here I am saying we simply do not know, that there are other possibilities. And there you have Patrick, dismissing anything that does not agree with him and his contested references. Acting as if he is providing irrefutable facts. He attaches fancy labels to his arguments to obfuscate the basic principles of the debate itself.
He completely ignores, or simply does not get how we “experience” the universe may be the game changer. That he won’t even begrudgingly acknowledge the possibility is not borne out of some superior intellect as he would like to fancy himself, but out of closed minded stubbornness built upon the foundation of “faith”.[/quote]
If you truly understood everything I was arguing, then you would not be consistently arguing that it’s bound by perception and experience, when it’s not. Not sure how to be more plain about it. No experience or perception alone can get you were this and other types of arguments take you. If you can experience them sensually then your either not human or superduper human.
We can only experience one kind of causation which may be only correlation at best. You have to step out side the box to see the rest.
The fancy words I used just happen to be what things are called. Why should I reinvent what was already been done?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
See, I can do references too. But the following had no bearing on my opinions. My own intellect took me to my opinions.
"What caused the First Cause?
One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.[13] The problem with arguing for the First Cause’s exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.[14]
Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori (deductively). However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.[15] Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[13]"
In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience…bears repeating and is essentially what I have been saying. And when I reference string theory and such, I am further illustrating how the universe MAY work which is wildly beyond our experience.
EVERY thought you have, theory you can imagine, language and label you can use, is the direct result and limitation of your experience with the universe.
[/quote]
It has already been established in philosophy that an infinite regression is part of a logical fallacy. It will beg the question, “and what moved that?” An unmoved mover is needed for causal relation because it will beg the question, and “what moved that?” The reason why the unmoved mover is not moved is because nothing is superior to the unmoved mover. It is not subject to anything else, there is nothing outside of it.[/quote]
Stop. Nothing is “established” by philosophy. We are talking science here, not philosophy. And philosophy is squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe. Your perception of “mover”, “causal”, etc. is all a reflection of your experience with the universe, which is limited. That your experience with the universe is severely limited is not even subject to serious debate. It’s a fact.
[/quote]
LOL! What? Nothing is established by philosophy? Science is a form of empirical philosophy, nothing more. You know what fancy smart scientists get when the complete their study? A ‘doctor of philosophy in ’. Technically everything branches from philosophy.
No. Infinite regress is a fallacy period because it begs question, period. Infinity and infinite regress are not the same things. Plenty of stuff is infinite, but you cannot regress infinitely. Regression requires a stop or it becomes circular.
No regression is not rooted in time. It occur in time, but it’s not rooted in it.
[quote]
Essentially what this TP who is studying time posits, is that if you remove the ARROW OF TIME, there is no causality. Such a static universe has already been theorized. You can certainly argue that OUR OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE had a cause but we do not yet know the limits of this universe or, if other universes, and static universes such as those theorized exist.
So while Pat jumps up and down and screams and attempts to talk down to people, we simply do not know. Period. End game. It is only religion and concepts of God that require an ultimate mover or cause.[/quote]
Again, incorrect. You’re stuck on time, I am not. Nothing I proposed requires anytime at all, I have deliberately avoided it.
If you understood the argument you would not be making these mistakes repeatedly.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< It’s not very interesting to have a debate with a closed mind. And when it comes to religion, that’s what you find - closed minds.[/quote]Then why are ya doin it? Fer like days now? Jist wonderin.
[/quote]
You are correct. I’m pretty much done. It took me a bit to reach that conclusion. You guys have chased away all the non-believers. Good discussion LOL[/quote]
If they run away, I don’t care. You must think we’re on some conversion mission. On a body building forum? Get real.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Yeah, I hardly understood a word you said. I asked you to stop with the fancy language and speak simply. I still do not understand how Aristotle, a man who put forth more good scholarly work by the grace of G-d on the subject of theology and morals than anyone else, is a pagan.
[/quote]Have you read Aristotle? You said you’re reading the Summa Theologica. And you’re complaining about MY fancy language? Look. I talk like I type for the most part. I am absolutely not trying to lose you and none of you guys are dummies. I don’t know exactly what to do with this, by which I mean no denigration to any whatsoever. You and Pat are being sincere though and I take you seriously.
[/quote]
I don’t believe it’s possible for something to be contingent if it cannot be created (Note: I’m referring only to contingent existence, not to contingent interaction). If you disagree with this, please explain why.
(For future reference, when I use caps, I’m not trying to yell. Formatting tags are a pain in the ass on the iPad, so I’m only capitalizing for emphasis
Hey Pat, what’s the point of debating with you when there are physicists that disagree with your conclusions? You make your conclusions sound like facts. They are not. Like I said before, you’re not stating facts, no matter how many references you provide or how strenuously you argue.
I don’t believe it’s possible for something to be contingent if it cannot be created (Note: I’m referring only to contingent existence, not to contingent interaction). If you disagree with this, please explain why.
(For future reference, when I use caps, I’m not trying to yell. Formatting tags are a pain in the ass on the iPad, so I’m only capitalizing for emphasis :)[/quote]
Well contingency simply means that everything has something critical to its existence. That’s why time isn’t crucial to it. Like the energy example, with out movement there is no energy. So energy is contingent upon movement. In a pre-big bang universe scenario where there is not time but there is energy, what ever ‘it’ is is moving. The you can go on to ask what is it that’s moving and how did obtain it’s movement.
LOL