[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]pat wrote:I am pretty sure he was aware of Aristotle.[/quote]Oh, you mean Jesus, His Apostles, and His Disciples were Hellenistic Jews…studied in Greek…wrote in Greek…spoke in Greek…knew Greek philosophy…wonder were the concept of the Trinity came from…Greek philosophy…wonder where our theology of G-d and the Angels came from…Greek philosophy and later…in a scary voice Medieval theology philosophy! The horror, I say to you Tirib rebuke your understanding of the Trinity because it is Greek philosophy. Man’s knowledge used to define G-d, despicable I dare say! How dare man try to define G-d and find truth![/quote]Lemme make sure I got this. Greek philosophy is the foundational thought (epistemology) from which springs the Catholic doctrines of God, the trinity and angels? The disciples were studied in Greek philosophy? Man found God in Greek and then Medieval philosophy? That’s what you’re saying? I’m asking.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
@Tirib, I suppose I’ll have some mercy on you, by the grace of G-d. And explain to you these difficult verses, even use a little St. Augustine because after all you claim to agree with him.
v. 15-16. says, “I will have mercy…” Paul is teaching as the Catholic Church teaches, that G-d calls and predestines those who he wishes to save, and is not because of any works or merits in men, but we’re only to give attribute to the mercy and goodness of G-d. See Aquinas on this chap. lect. iii///Augustine, Encher. chap. xcviii. Epis 194. in the new Ed. Ep. 105. ad Sixtum de lib. Arbit. chap. xxv. &c.
v. 18. says, “And whom he will, he hardenth.” Paul is telling us here that G-d permits those to be hardened by their own malice, as is seen in Exodus that the Pharaoh heart is hardened. St. Augustine says G-d hardens men’s hearts, not by causing their own sin and malice, but by refraining from giving them the free gift of His grace. They hardened their own hearts because of their perverted wills. (Witham)
v. 22-23. Paul explains the reason why G-d might, without becoming injustice, have mercy on some while refraining from others, grant particular graces and favours to his elect, and not equally to all; because all men are liable to the damanation that came with original sin: the clay which all men are made up of, as St. Augustine says, was become a lump and a mass of damnation. Every one had sinned in Adam. Now, if out of this sinful lump and multitude God, to shew the richness of his glory, and superabundant mercy, hath chosen some as vessels of election, whom he hath decreed to save, and by special graces and favours to make partakers of his heavenly kingdom; and to shew his justice and hatred of sin, hath left others as vessels of his wrath and justice, to be lost in their sins, which for a time he bears patiently with, when they deserved present punishment, who can say that he hath done unjustly? (Witham)[/quote]Maybe you should reread this yourself.
Here’s a quick one I dug up that I wrote to Ephrem last September:
[quote]I have extensively shown you from scripture which you don’t believe, but which does demonstrate my belief, that every last human being aside from Christ Himself is conceived in sin and born into spiritual death in the spiritual graveyard of this fallen world. All OF US. God, who is answerable to no one, for reasons sufficient entirely unto Himself resurrects some of us and has known those by name from eternity upon whom He would bestow this unfathomable free gift.
You may be one. And as I’ve told you already, if you are you WILL come home. And you will do it willingly, joyously and humbly. I promise you. Because you see, the God I serve cannot fail. All of those He wants as His own will be. Nobody is lesser or greater than anybody else. He says so. It has nothing to do with anything in the elect that recommends them to the Father over those He chooses to leave in their sin. [/quote]I see the Bishop of Hippo smiling from here.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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. [/quote]
Why would I care if physicists disagree? This is a philosophical argument. In can incorporate science or not. It works either way. The stuff you presented was refuted 700 years ago. They were wrong before they said it. That doesn’t mean they are wrong about physics, they just didn’t study philosophy. If they did, then they would not have said it.
I am not stating facts? They are absolute facts, you just can’t prove them wrong.
I am not the one with the hard head here. You’re trying to strong arm me in to accepting a conclusion because smart people in a different field disagree with the conclusion. Like I said, that is the fallacy of appealing to authority which basically states that a persons argument must be true because of credentials and reputation. [/quote]
What have I presented that was refuted 700 years ago when TPs are wrangling with the issues today?
[/quote]
Well if they are still wrangling with them, that in itself proves that it has never been refuted. Second, if they disagree, that’s fine with me. Refuting is different than agreement and disagreement.
When has it not been a philosophical argument? I never claimed it was physics. I can be used there, but it’s not necessary.
I already have stated my facts like a thousand times. Why bother doing it again, really? Want the link? It would have saved you so much trouble.
Oh wow! That was a refutation? You keep bringing up the same unrelated garbage as proof the argument is wrong? Just further proof you don’t understand the argument. It goes beyond experience. But you keep on with the same garbage. Experience has nothing to do with it, if people didn’t exist the argument would still be true.
If you don’t want to dialog then stop. It’s not like you’re getting anywhere.
‘I already refuted it’ LOL! Call the Nobel laureate. We have a winner![/quote]
Because you’re getting somewhere? LOL
I don’t understand the argument? Is that so? LOL. Then why is it you can’t get your brain around the fact that any “argument” you can construct is limited to your experience with the universe? Are you telling me your argument transcends the unknown, all the while using the logic of your limited “known”? LMFAO. I guess I’m the only dumb one among all the other smart people working on these issues that do not agree with the cosmological argument and its permutations. [/quote]
Why can’t I wrap my brain around something that is clearly, plainly untrue? Well, maybe because it’s wrong. If did actually understand the argument, you’d know that and quit making whole ‘rooted in human experience’ hoohaa. You understand nothing about (warning: Fancy Word) epistemology. There is nothing at the end of this argument you can ‘experience’ you can only deduce. You’re projecting an (fancy word) empirical limitation on a deductive argument. You applying a correlational scientific model to a purely logically derived argument.
You come here telling me how I cannot know anything beyond my own experience while at the same time talking about how the math behind string theory allowed scientists to see beyond their own experience of 4 dimensional time and space to 11 possible dimensions? You’re telling me that people can’t know things beyond their experience except those people who know enough math to see beyond their experience? You can’t find the irony there?
If people can see beyond their experience with math (a deductive argument form) then they can see beyond it with other deductive arguments so long as they are true.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]pat wrote:I am pretty sure he was aware of Aristotle.[/quote]Oh, you mean Jesus, His Apostles, and His Disciples were Hellenistic Jews…studied in Greek…wrote in Greek…spoke in Greek…knew Greek philosophy…wonder were the concept of the Trinity came from…Greek philosophy…wonder where our theology of G-d and the Angels came from…Greek philosophy and later…in a scary voice Medieval theology philosophy! The horror, I say to you Tirib rebuke your understanding of the Trinity because it is Greek philosophy. Man’s knowledge used to define G-d, despicable I dare say! How dare man try to define G-d and find truth![/quote]Lemme make sure I got this. Greek philosophy is the foundational thought (epistemology) from which springs the Catholic doctrines of God, the trinity and angels? The disciples were studied in Greek philosophy? Man found God in Greek and then Medieval philosophy? That’s what you’re saying? I’m asking.
[/quote]
I said aware, not studied. Aristotle was famous even then, I have no proof, but I am pretty sure Paul wasn’t to dense to notice Aristotelian influence when he was in Greece and Turkey. He was quite in tune with his surroundings. That’s what allowed him to reach people.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]pat wrote:I am pretty sure he was aware of Aristotle.[/quote]Oh, you mean Jesus, His Apostles, and His Disciples were Hellenistic Jews…studied in Greek…wrote in Greek…spoke in Greek…knew Greek philosophy…wonder were the concept of the Trinity came from…Greek philosophy…wonder where our theology of G-d and the Angels came from…Greek philosophy and later…in a scary voice Medieval theology philosophy! The horror, I say to you Tirib rebuke your understanding of the Trinity because it is Greek philosophy. Man’s knowledge used to define G-d, despicable I dare say! How dare man try to define G-d and find truth![/quote]Lemme make sure I got this. Greek philosophy is the foundational thought (epistemology) from which springs the Catholic doctrines of God, the trinity and angels? The disciples were studied in Greek philosophy? Man found God in Greek and then Medieval philosophy? That’s what you’re saying? I’m asking.
[/quote]I said aware, not studied. Aristotle was famous even then, I have no proof, but I am pretty sure Paul wasn’t to dense to notice Aristotelian influence when he was in Greece and Turkey. He was quite in tune with his surroundings. That’s what allowed him to reach people.[/quote]Oh I’m pretty sure you’re right about Paul being well aware of the Greek thinkers. Read 1st Corinthians 1. Chris said “studied”.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Aristotle would smile while Paul weeps. Actually while Paul rebukes like he does here.
Romans 9, again. See, I’m with Paul and Augustine and Calvin and Luther and Van Til. I say with them that the following is an ABSOLUTE all governing declaration of the utterly independent non contingent GODHOOD, sovereign, unquestionable power and providence of ALL mighty Lord God El-Shaddai. Whatever else we find about man? It must bow to this. But not according to Aristotle, or Aquinas or Rome or Chris or Jake, or Pat or Cortes, or Sloth etc. When we find statements about man, wellllll God must jist scoot His lil ol butt over and make room for the exalted will of His insolent creatures. Man defines God, not God defining man. And the devil snickers.
[quote]6-But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7-and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8-This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9-For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10-And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11-though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls- 12-she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14-What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15-For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16-So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17-For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19-You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20-But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21-Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22-What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23-in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory[/quote]This the ESV, accepted by the Catholic magisterium, which even renders the “vessels of wrath” piece in the perfect passive, (prepared for destruction) because they’d be laughed out of scholarly circles otherwise. Look, Ya’ll can crow n cry all ya want. This is God’s proclamation concerning Himself and His ultimate kingship over YOU and me. I joyously, with hands lifted high in praise of His unsearchable might and mercy, bow to Him, just as He describes Himself. I suggest you do the same.
Oh yeah. Anytime you want many more examples of His absolute triumphant sovereignty? Just say the word. In fact I’ll probably post some anyway lest the reader be led falsely to believe that the 9th of Romans is a “cherry picked” example of God ruling and reigning in the hearts and affairs of men. But, see, even if it WERE the only one, by it’s nature it governs man absolutely. Don’t you see what violence is done to the majesty of the most high God by attempting to squeeze Him inside the will of man?[/quote]
What if…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
How can something be contingent in existence then, if it can’t be created? If it was never created, how can it depend on anything to be brought into existence? It was never created, so it was never brought into existence.[/quote]
There are two way to look at it. If something is contingent on something else, then the something is dependent on something else. Even if it has always existed.
And technically if it happens extra temporally, then it’s always eternal. So by that thought process it can be both created and eternal because it happened out side of time.
Both are possible, one is true. I just don’t know which is which.
Gotta run…[/quote]
You keep bringing time into it, and time is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if it has always existed, that says nothing about whether or not it was created.
Again, please be very clear that we are talking about contingent existence, not contingent interaction. And by contingent existence, I’m specifically talking about original existence, not ongoing existence. I’m not even getting into the possible destruction of matter/energy at this point. I’m talking very specifically about the noncontingency of matter/energy in its original existence.
If something was not created, how can its original existence be contingent? It’s not, because nothing created it. If nothing created it, it is definitionally noncontingent.
Can you at least acknowledge that this is a real possibility?[/quote]
That something came from nothing? No that is not a possibility at all. Everything exists because of something else, except for that which is uncaused. Regression necessitates that it can only be one thing.
If you take away a piece from a puzzle it ceases to be a completed puzzle. Whether or not that puzzle exited forever, it requires that piece to be what it is. Probably not the best analogy. But if you picture our movement in time as a journey across a large straw or tube, you step out of the tube and look at it from one end or another, everything happens simultaneously there.
However, if something wasn’t created or contingent, then something from nothing would be proven.[/quote]
No. I’m asking you to acknowledge the possibility that matter/energy is noncontingent. This is exactly what the laws of conservation assert, since once again we are talking about contingent original creation, which is impossible for matter/energy,
You’re arguing that matter can’t be noncontingent because if you removed one of its properties, like spin or charge, it would no longer be matter.
What you’re missing is that the identical criticism applies to god. You could similarly argue that god can’t be noncontingent, because if you removed one of his properties, like omnipotence or benevolence, he would no longer be god.
God is as dependent on his defining properties as matter is dependent on its defining properties. The existence of properties doesn’t imply something cannot be noncontingent.
[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:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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. [/quote]
Why would I care if physicists disagree? This is a philosophical argument. In can incorporate science or not. It works either way. The stuff you presented was refuted 700 years ago. They were wrong before they said it. That doesn’t mean they are wrong about physics, they just didn’t study philosophy. If they did, then they would not have said it.
I am not stating facts? They are absolute facts, you just can’t prove them wrong.
I am not the one with the hard head here. You’re trying to strong arm me in to accepting a conclusion because smart people in a different field disagree with the conclusion. Like I said, that is the fallacy of appealing to authority which basically states that a persons argument must be true because of credentials and reputation. [/quote]
What have I presented that was refuted 700 years ago when TPs are wrangling with the issues today?
[/quote]
Well if they are still wrangling with them, that in itself proves that it has never been refuted. Second, if they disagree, that’s fine with me. Refuting is different than agreement and disagreement.
When has it not been a philosophical argument? I never claimed it was physics. I can be used there, but it’s not necessary.
I already have stated my facts like a thousand times. Why bother doing it again, really? Want the link? It would have saved you so much trouble.
Oh wow! That was a refutation? You keep bringing up the same unrelated garbage as proof the argument is wrong? Just further proof you don’t understand the argument. It goes beyond experience. But you keep on with the same garbage. Experience has nothing to do with it, if people didn’t exist the argument would still be true.
If you don’t want to dialog then stop. It’s not like you’re getting anywhere.
‘I already refuted it’ LOL! Call the Nobel laureate. We have a winner![/quote]
Because you’re getting somewhere? LOL
I don’t understand the argument? Is that so? LOL. Then why is it you can’t get your brain around the fact that any “argument” you can construct is limited to your experience with the universe? Are you telling me your argument transcends the unknown, all the while using the logic of your limited “known”? LMFAO. I guess I’m the only dumb one among all the other smart people working on these issues that do not agree with the cosmological argument and its permutations. [/quote]
Why can’t I wrap my brain around something that is clearly, plainly untrue? Well, maybe because it’s wrong. If did actually understand the argument, you’d know that and quit making whole ‘rooted in human experience’ hoohaa. You understand nothing about (warning: Fancy Word) epistemology. There is nothing at the end of this argument you can ‘experience’ you can only deduce. You’re projecting an (fancy word) empirical limitation on a deductive argument. You applying a correlational scientific model to a purely logically derived argument.
You come here telling me how I cannot know anything beyond my own experience while at the same time talking about how the math behind string theory allowed scientists to see beyond their own experience of 4 dimensional time and space to 11 possible dimensions? You’re telling me that people can’t know things beyond their experience except those people who know enough math to see beyond their experience? You can’t find the irony there?
If people can see beyond their experience with math (a deductive argument form) then they can see beyond it with other deductive arguments so long as they are true. [/quote]
For a deductive argument to be valid requires truth of the premise. Your premise is related to your experience. Deductive arguments are necessarily circular in nature and hence our discussion. You fancy yourself some intellectual because you’ve been swayed by some stuff you read. Your argument is no better than the following:
All dogs have fleas. This is a dog. Therefore, this dog must have fleas.
Well, we all know that not all dogs have fleas. But perhaps every dog you’ve seen or come into contact with does have fleas. All dogs have fleas is the premise, and it’s incorrect. Your starting premise is no better than “all dogs have fleas”. Why is it no better than “all dogs have fleas”? Because of your LIMITED experience with the universe. When I raised string theory and such, it was only to illustrate how much our experience is limited and how our experience may indeed be illusory. If something like string theory bears out as truth, that’s firm evidence that the universe behaves in a way you cannot “grok” and that therefore, the premises you rely upon for your “reasoning” are indeed faulty - all dogs have fleas. You have an experience with causation that may or may not be true. The only irony is your butchering my point. The only irony is your repeating all dogs have fleas, instead of " all the dogs I see have fleas. there is growing evidence suggesting that i cannot see all dogs or that the dogs I see may not even be dogs . this appears to be a dog. this dog might have fleas".
Anyway, smarter men than me have found fault with your “logic” - fault with your very premise, based on our a growing body of theoretical physics. I didn’t make it up. But at least I was smart enough to “grok” the weakness in your sermon before I went about the mission of research.
Are your deductive arguments true? Hmmm. Let’ see, some very smart men disagree. So the “truth” of your premise is disputed. And have you noticed that every single time I ask you a direct question, you avoid it with pseudo-intellectual obfuscation? You do that because you KNOW that the weakness in your logic IS the premise.
Here is my direct question to you. Answer it:
What is the premise of your air-tight deductive argument? Go ahead, humor me. State it and stop with the boring pseudo-intellectual speak. You can sit there and identify your arguments all day and name drop. State your premise.
Fancy word rebuttal: Yeah, another label for your thinking. While you’re dropping gems like epistemology you’d be better served by reexamining “what you know” v. “what you believe”. Your allegedly flawless deductive arguments are rooted in “what you believe”.
And by the way, do you really want to be THAT guy who attempts to appear more intellectual than they really are by using big words and parroting stuff they read? I mean, you can’t make your argument without relying on these labels? You think they make you seem smarter? Or your arguments stronger?
Show me how smart you really are. Answer my direct question.
And I’ll play your game some more since you like to label shit and “sound smart”. When you answer my direct question challenging you to state your premise clearly, I want you to identify whether that premise is based on a priori knowledge or a posteriori knowledge. When you do this (clearly state your premise and the basis for it) I will respond further.
Or, you can keep talking in circle while avoiding any serious debate or challenge.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[/quote]
22-What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23-in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.
I was merely pointing out those words at the beginning of verse 22 there.
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[/quote]
22-What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23-in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.
I was merely pointing out those words at the beginning of verse 22 there.[/quote]You’re not seriously proposing that Paul’s use of that phraseology indicates that he didn’t actually believe that’s what happened? Jake, ol buddy, (well, for a few weeks anyway) the middle voice argument, (prepared themselves) while wrong, is still much better than that one.
He is directly relating these here “vessels” into one purpose. Some prepared for destruction and some for glory. Paul is saying right here that God restrained Himself from sooner destroying the former so as to more gloriously display his mercy in the latter. All prepared beforehand. We can dispute and argue for the rest our natural lives and Paul will be still be saying that while the Word of God yet prevails. Guess how long that will be.
See this goes right along with the hypothetical question of verse 19. “What, GOD CANNOT BE JUST IF HE PREDESTINES PEOPLE!!!” (accurate paraphrase). Sound familiar? Paul response? Shaddup. (another accurate paraphrase)
Parts of this thread remind me of the Superhero thread in GAL where grown men were debating which superhero could beat the other superhero based upon fictional powers. They even supported their arguments based upon the fictional accounts of those characters and their exploits from the comic books, cartoons and movies about them. Yup, much of this thread reminds me of that.
If there really was a superhero, there probably wouldn’t be much debate about what he could do, not do, or whether he did it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[/quote]
22-What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23-in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.
I was merely pointing out those words at the beginning of verse 22 there.[/quote]You’re not seriously proposing that Paul’s use of that phraseology indicates that he didn’t actually believe that’s what happened? Jake, ol buddy, (well, for a few weeks anyway) the middle voice argument, (prepared themselves) while wrong, is still much better than that one.
He is directly relating these here “vessels” into one purpose. Some prepared for destruction and some for glory. Paul is saying right here that God restrained Himself from sooner destroying the former so as to more gloriously display his mercy in the latter. All prepared beforehand. We can dispute and argue for the rest our natural lives and Paul will be still be saying that while the Word of God yet prevails. Guess how long that will be.
See this goes right along with the hypothetical question of verse 19. “What, GOD CANNOT BE JUST IF HE PREDESTINES PEOPLE!!!” (accurate paraphrase). Sound familiar? Paul response? Shaddup. (another accurate paraphrase)
[/quote]
Don’t jump to conclusions. I was merely pondering out loud (in writing). It would be difficult for me to say anything about that “phraseology” unless I really knew the original language and knew Paul personally (like he was my good buddy). It was more like me pondering “what if” as I don’t believe what you espouse Paul means here, but I was reflecting on what if it is true (trying to put myself in your shoes not words or meaning into Paul’s mouth or mind).
I do think what he is saying is that people are foolish to call God unjust (pointing out human insolence, I’m sure we will agree there). If what you say is true about God then I wouldn’t call Him unjust either (He is God after all). I don’t think predestination as you lay it out though is correct as it is contradictory to many things and makes many things meaningless.
Really, I just think God operates differently than you do. Something like this: God gives everyone a chance (grace) some take it (live a life of repentence and faith) and HE SAVES them, others do not and HE ALLOWS them to deny it. God is still the author of all things, but He does not force people to bend to His will. God loses no sovreignty in this and man is in no way elevated to God’s level just because we are given a choice.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[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:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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. [/quote]
Why would I care if physicists disagree? This is a philosophical argument. In can incorporate science or not. It works either way. The stuff you presented was refuted 700 years ago. They were wrong before they said it. That doesn’t mean they are wrong about physics, they just didn’t study philosophy. If they did, then they would not have said it.
I am not stating facts? They are absolute facts, you just can’t prove them wrong.
I am not the one with the hard head here. You’re trying to strong arm me in to accepting a conclusion because smart people in a different field disagree with the conclusion. Like I said, that is the fallacy of appealing to authority which basically states that a persons argument must be true because of credentials and reputation. [/quote]
What have I presented that was refuted 700 years ago when TPs are wrangling with the issues today?
[/quote]
Well if they are still wrangling with them, that in itself proves that it has never been refuted. Second, if they disagree, that’s fine with me. Refuting is different than agreement and disagreement.
When has it not been a philosophical argument? I never claimed it was physics. I can be used there, but it’s not necessary.
I already have stated my facts like a thousand times. Why bother doing it again, really? Want the link? It would have saved you so much trouble.
Oh wow! That was a refutation? You keep bringing up the same unrelated garbage as proof the argument is wrong? Just further proof you don’t understand the argument. It goes beyond experience. But you keep on with the same garbage. Experience has nothing to do with it, if people didn’t exist the argument would still be true.
If you don’t want to dialog then stop. It’s not like you’re getting anywhere.
‘I already refuted it’ LOL! Call the Nobel laureate. We have a winner![/quote]
Because you’re getting somewhere? LOL
I don’t understand the argument? Is that so? LOL. Then why is it you can’t get your brain around the fact that any “argument” you can construct is limited to your experience with the universe? Are you telling me your argument transcends the unknown, all the while using the logic of your limited “known”? LMFAO. I guess I’m the only dumb one among all the other smart people working on these issues that do not agree with the cosmological argument and its permutations. [/quote]
Why can’t I wrap my brain around something that is clearly, plainly untrue? Well, maybe because it’s wrong. If did actually understand the argument, you’d know that and quit making whole ‘rooted in human experience’ hoohaa. You understand nothing about (warning: Fancy Word) epistemology. There is nothing at the end of this argument you can ‘experience’ you can only deduce. You’re projecting an (fancy word) empirical limitation on a deductive argument. You applying a correlational scientific model to a purely logically derived argument.
You come here telling me how I cannot know anything beyond my own experience while at the same time talking about how the math behind string theory allowed scientists to see beyond their own experience of 4 dimensional time and space to 11 possible dimensions? You’re telling me that people can’t know things beyond their experience except those people who know enough math to see beyond their experience? You can’t find the irony there?
If people can see beyond their experience with math (a deductive argument form) then they can see beyond it with other deductive arguments so long as they are true. [/quote]
For a deductive argument to be valid requires truth of the premise. Your premise is related to your experience. Deductive arguments are necessarily circular in nature and hence our discussion. You fancy yourself some intellectual because you’ve been swayed by some stuff you read. Your argument is no better than the following:
All dogs have fleas. This is a dog. Therefore, this dog must have fleas.
[/quote]
No, that is an empirical argument and a fallacious one at that. It’s both ‘affirming the antecedent’ and circular both at the same time. That took talent for such a short sentence.
And you again commit the fallacy of appealing to authority. Being really, really smart does not mean your counter argument is right. I can use the definitions of said fancy words, but it would be much longer. So I will continue to call things what they are.
Answer to your direct question, again:
Causation. That’s what it’s based on.
[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:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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. [/quote]
Why would I care if physicists disagree? This is a philosophical argument. In can incorporate science or not. It works either way. The stuff you presented was refuted 700 years ago. They were wrong before they said it. That doesn’t mean they are wrong about physics, they just didn’t study philosophy. If they did, then they would not have said it.
I am not stating facts? They are absolute facts, you just can’t prove them wrong.
I am not the one with the hard head here. You’re trying to strong arm me in to accepting a conclusion because smart people in a different field disagree with the conclusion. Like I said, that is the fallacy of appealing to authority which basically states that a persons argument must be true because of credentials and reputation. [/quote]
What have I presented that was refuted 700 years ago when TPs are wrangling with the issues today?
[/quote]
Well if they are still wrangling with them, that in itself proves that it has never been refuted. Second, if they disagree, that’s fine with me. Refuting is different than agreement and disagreement.
When has it not been a philosophical argument? I never claimed it was physics. I can be used there, but it’s not necessary.
I already have stated my facts like a thousand times. Why bother doing it again, really? Want the link? It would have saved you so much trouble.
Oh wow! That was a refutation? You keep bringing up the same unrelated garbage as proof the argument is wrong? Just further proof you don’t understand the argument. It goes beyond experience. But you keep on with the same garbage. Experience has nothing to do with it, if people didn’t exist the argument would still be true.
If you don’t want to dialog then stop. It’s not like you’re getting anywhere.
‘I already refuted it’ LOL! Call the Nobel laureate. We have a winner![/quote]
Because you’re getting somewhere? LOL
I don’t understand the argument? Is that so? LOL. Then why is it you can’t get your brain around the fact that any “argument” you can construct is limited to your experience with the universe? Are you telling me your argument transcends the unknown, all the while using the logic of your limited “known”? LMFAO. I guess I’m the only dumb one among all the other smart people working on these issues that do not agree with the cosmological argument and its permutations. [/quote]
Why can’t I wrap my brain around something that is clearly, plainly untrue? Well, maybe because it’s wrong. If did actually understand the argument, you’d know that and quit making whole ‘rooted in human experience’ hoohaa. You understand nothing about (warning: Fancy Word) epistemology. There is nothing at the end of this argument you can ‘experience’ you can only deduce. You’re projecting an (fancy word) empirical limitation on a deductive argument. You applying a correlational scientific model to a purely logically derived argument.
You come here telling me how I cannot know anything beyond my own experience while at the same time talking about how the math behind string theory allowed scientists to see beyond their own experience of 4 dimensional time and space to 11 possible dimensions? You’re telling me that people can’t know things beyond their experience except those people who know enough math to see beyond their experience? You can’t find the irony there?
If people can see beyond their experience with math (a deductive argument form) then they can see beyond it with other deductive arguments so long as they are true. [/quote]
For a deductive argument to be valid requires truth of the premise. Your premise is related to your experience. Deductive arguments are necessarily circular in nature and hence our discussion. You fancy yourself some intellectual because you’ve been swayed by some stuff you read. Your argument is no better than the following:
All dogs have fleas. This is a dog. Therefore, this dog must have fleas.
[/quote]
No, that is an empirical argument and a fallacious one at that. It’s both ‘affirming the antecedent’ and circular both at the same time. That took talent for such a short sentence.
And you again commit the fallacy of appealing to authority. Being really, really smart does not mean your counter argument is right. I can use the definitions of said fancy words, but it would be much longer. So I will continue to call things what they are.
Answer to your direct question, again:
Causation. That’s what it’s based on.[/quote]
Number one, you are wrong. The dog example is a typical deductive argument. It is not empirical. For it to be correct though, the premise that “all dogs have fleas” has to be correct.
Next, I am NOT appealing to authority at all. I told you long ago that I “groked” the problems with your assertions without doing a single shred of research. When you finally moved me to research, I found some other very smart people that disagree with you and your sources. They didn’t seed my ideas, only confirmed some of my thoughts. YOU are the one that posted all your references.
Finally, you are AGAIN talking in circles. I asked you a simple question. Answer the simple question. State your premise. We know you’re finger fucking “causation” over here, but simply state your premise for your infallible deductive argument. I’m waiting. State the premise.
[quote]pat wrote:
Answer to your direct question, again:
Causation. That’s what it’s based on.[/quote]
How do you base anything on a category of perception?
Just because you must perceive causality does not mean that it exists.
[quote]orion wrote:<<< Just because you must perceive causality does not mean that it exists >>>[/quote]Agreed. I believe in causation, but not because I perceive it.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Answer to your direct question, again:
Causation. That’s what it’s based on.[/quote]
How do you base anything on a category of perception?
Just because you must perceive causality does not mean that it exists.
[/quote]
Oh he’s got an answer to that but let’s just see if we can get him to state his premise without providing a reference to someone else’s argument that man has struggled with since he started thinking.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
How can something be contingent in existence then, if it can’t be created? If it was never created, how can it depend on anything to be brought into existence? It was never created, so it was never brought into existence.[/quote]
There are two way to look at it. If something is contingent on something else, then the something is dependent on something else. Even if it has always existed.
And technically if it happens extra temporally, then it’s always eternal. So by that thought process it can be both created and eternal because it happened out side of time.
Both are possible, one is true. I just don’t know which is which.
Gotta run…[/quote]
You keep bringing time into it, and time is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if it has always existed, that says nothing about whether or not it was created.
Again, please be very clear that we are talking about contingent existence, not contingent interaction. And by contingent existence, I’m specifically talking about original existence, not ongoing existence. I’m not even getting into the possible destruction of matter/energy at this point. I’m talking very specifically about the noncontingency of matter/energy in its original existence.
If something was not created, how can its original existence be contingent? It’s not, because nothing created it. If nothing created it, it is definitionally noncontingent.
Can you at least acknowledge that this is a real possibility?[/quote]
That something came from nothing? No that is not a possibility at all. Everything exists because of something else, except for that which is uncaused. Regression necessitates that it can only be one thing.
If you take away a piece from a puzzle it ceases to be a completed puzzle. Whether or not that puzzle exited forever, it requires that piece to be what it is. Probably not the best analogy. But if you picture our movement in time as a journey across a large straw or tube, you step out of the tube and look at it from one end or another, everything happens simultaneously there.
However, if something wasn’t created or contingent, then something from nothing would be proven.[/quote]
No. I’m asking you to acknowledge the possibility that matter/energy is noncontingent. This is exactly what the laws of conservation assert, since once again we are talking about contingent original creation, which is impossible for matter/energy,
You’re arguing that matter can’t be noncontingent because if you removed one of its properties, like spin or charge, it would no longer be matter.
What you’re missing is that the identical criticism applies to god. You could similarly argue that god can’t be noncontingent, because if you removed one of his properties, like omnipotence or benevolence, he would no longer be god.
God is as dependent on his defining properties as matter is dependent on its defining properties. The existence of properties doesn’t imply something cannot be noncontingent.
[/quote]
No it is impossible for matter and energy to be non-contingent. Mainly because it is contingent. Again, always existing does not matter, lot’s of things can fit the definition on being eternal, but none of them are none contingent. Matter and energy do not have that property uniquely. Further, as discussed, matter and energy do not exist independently and can do nothing on their own. Something must act on them for them to do anything at all. That’s a huge problem for claiming non-contingency.
Benevolence or omniscience isn’t properties of the uncaused-cause, it’s the result of being. But even if you removed that, you still have an uncaused-cause. The only way to disassemble that is to remove existence, then it would just be an uncaused thing, not an uncaused-causer.