Bible Contradictions 2.0

TheBodyGuard · March 2, 2011, 11:14pm

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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]

The premise? Oh yeah, it’s causation. Thought I mentioned that, but if I was remiss, it’s causation.

serious debate? LOL! Is that what this is? Silly me. Continuously throwing extremely bad versions of ‘logic’ at me is not exactely what I’d call serious debate. But keep going…[/quote]

Is this really all there is to you? Seriously? Pull your dress down and answer the question instead of trying to be so cute. Causation. Causation what. STATE your premise. [/quote]

Causation is the premise. Really, how hard is that to figure out? If you can identify one single little tiny thing that exists uncaused then you’ve either found God or you have shredded the argument to smithereens. Entire forests have been laid to waste over the topic. I am only concerned with the base up it, causes necessitate their effects, and sufficient reason, which is just another way to word causation. That’s the fucking premise. You’re the first person I have seen that doesn’t get that.[/quote]

And yet again, causality is a category of perception.

You are in effect only arguing that you cannot think an uncaused thing, which is neither here nor there when it comes to the existence of such a thing.

Since the natural sciences are positvist endeavours anyway, there really is no need for them to establish any form of causality in their theories.

Finally, you can never really establish a causal link between two occurences anyway, so your killer argument has literally no feet to stand on.

[/quote]

It’s a category of perception? Sure you don’t want a do over?

Ok, so prove it. How are causal relationships a symptom of perception, or bound, or related in someway? I am sure your answer will at least be better than bodygaurds’.[/quote]

Prove it’s not.

Oh wait, that’s right, it HASN’T BEEN PROVEN EITHER WAY!! End fucking discussion. Of course, if you can prove your position, I suggest you immediately prepare your findings and submit them for peer review so that you may receive an award. And maybe you can crack time travel and other mysteries next.

Tiribulus · March 2, 2011, 11:33pm

[quote]orion wrote:<<< Now that is kind of circular, isnt it? >>>[/quote]Says who?

Tiribulus · March 3, 2011, 12:12am

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< We aren’t criticizing God; we’re criticizing your fatally flawed ideology of a tyrant god driven by whim and self-gratification.[/quote]Oh, but you are criticizing God. Read Isaiah 10. That would be where God moves on the heart of the king of Assyria to invade and sack Jerusalem even though the king did not so intend. Once the king does indeed “take spoil and seize plunder, and <<<>>> tread them down like the mire of the streets.” because God silently commanded him to, God pronounces judgment on the king AND his army for so doing and not recognizing himself as the mere instrument of the wrath of God against His stiffnecked and backslidden covenant people. The Lord asks sardonically if the axe will boast itself over him who hews with it. He therefore sends a wasting sickness to destroy Assyria’s army.

So we have a king who has no intention of invading Israel on his own, but God gives him the intention and that without the king even knowing.

The king does what God purposed him to do.

God punishes the king and his army for destroying Israel and taking the credit.

I have no illusions. Scripture carries no real weight you or most of the other people here so you’ll just skip over this like you and they do all the other scripture I post and go right on making disingenuous pronouncements about a God you hate while sniveling about how I never answer anybody. Repent, believe the gospel, throw yourself on His mercy and live.

pat · March 3, 2011, 1:44am

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, thanks for your response. I have a few points, but am trying to prioritize the most important, so will ask this question first:

What if “information” is noncontingent?

You seem to be taking the position that matter and energy are ultimately comprised of information. So what if this information was never created, and is noncontingent?[/quote]

Well we’re starting a slippery slope. If not this, then what about what’s next? We don’t really know shit about ‘information’ except mathematics tells us it’s there, maybe. We don’t know if it’s divisible, or not. But the same simple rules apply, why is it there, where did it come from, and how did it get there?
If the questions are not applicable, how come?[/quote]

Since we don’t know shit about it, except that it can’t be created, doesn’t that give you pause in concluding the cosmological argument must be true? I sure don’t feel knowledgeable enough to draw any conclusions at this point.

On your questions:

Why is it there?
Why are you assuming there has to be a reason it is there? If it wasn’t created, there is no why.
[/quote]
Correct, except we haven’t sufficiently established it wasn’t. We don’t even know if it even exists. Can you establish it exists for no reason other than it’s there? With out more knowledge of it, we can’t know that. That’s the problem with empirical facts. It constantly requires info to establish.

[quote]
Where did it come from?
It wasn’t created, so it didn’t come from anything.

How did it get there?
Again, it wasn’t created so it didn’t get there. It was always there.[/quote]

Ok so you are taking the stance that ‘information’ exists for no reason, correct? What is your argument that establishes that fact?
Are you calling it an ‘uncaused-cause’?

pat · March 3, 2011, 2:01am

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< We aren’t criticizing God; we’re criticizing your fatally flawed ideology of a tyrant god driven by whim and self-gratification.[/quote]Oh, but you are criticizing God. Read Isaiah 10. That would be where God moves on the heart of the king of Assyria to invade and sack Jerusalem even though the king did not so intend. Once the king does indeed “take spoil and seize plunder, and <<<>>> tread them down like the mire of the streets.” because God silently commanded him to, God pronounces judgment on the king AND his army for so doing and not recognizing himself as the mere instrument of the wrath of God against His stiffnecked and backslidden covenant people. The Lord asks sardonically if the axe will boast itself over him who hews with it. He therefore sends a wasting sickness to destroy Assyria’s army.

So we have a king who has no intention of invading Israel on his own, but God gives him the intention and that without the king even knowing.

The king does what God purposed him to do.

God punishes the king and his army for destroying Israel and taking the credit.

I have no illusions. Scripture carries no real weight you or most of the other people here so you’ll just skip over this like you and they do all the other scripture I post and go right on making disingenuous pronouncements about a God you hate while sniveling about how I never answer anybody. Repent, believe the gospel, throw yourself on His mercy and live.
[/quote]

First, that’s not why God punishes the King. He punishes the king for arrogance and 'in his heart to destroy and cut off many nations. It says it right there in black and white.
He uses the king to punish Jerusalem and then punishes him for his transgressions. He uses the King and then punish him for his own sins.

Second, if he is predestined, he has no choice what he does.

Third, telling someone who does not believe in God to believe in the Gospel is about like telling him to believe in puff the magic Dragon.
If God, does not exist, the bible is meaningless. It’s fine for you and I because we believe in God.
Forth, we both believe in scripture and have vastly different takes on the same words.

Fifth, he probably knows the Bible better than both of us. He was a Mormon at one point and Scripture is drilled, as well as John Smith’s book of Mormon, but none the less drilled.
Again, this should show you how fragile faith is.

Sixth, if you don’t think that predestination is a damning, controlling, almighty, dogma you do not understand predestination at all. According to it, none of us have choice and we are pre-demned. We cannot do anything other than what predestination has determined us to do. It is flat the worst religious dogma I have had the displeasure of being exposed to. Predestination is the belief of atheists and Presbyterians only.

pat · March 3, 2011, 2:25am

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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]

The premise? Oh yeah, it’s causation. Thought I mentioned that, but if I was remiss, it’s causation.

serious debate? LOL! Is that what this is? Silly me. Continuously throwing extremely bad versions of ‘logic’ at me is not exactely what I’d call serious debate. But keep going…[/quote]

Is this really all there is to you? Seriously? Pull your dress down and answer the question instead of trying to be so cute. Causation. Causation what. STATE your premise. [/quote]

Causation is the premise. Really, how hard is that to figure out? If you can identify one single little tiny thing that exists uncaused then you’ve either found God or you have shredded the argument to smithereens. Entire forests have been laid to waste over the topic. I am only concerned with the base up it, causes necessitate their effects, and sufficient reason, which is just another way to word causation. That’s the fucking premise. You’re the first person I have seen that doesn’t get that.[/quote]

And yet again, causality is a category of perception.

You are in effect only arguing that you cannot think an uncaused thing, which is neither here nor there when it comes to the existence of such a thing.

Since the natural sciences are positvist endeavours anyway, there really is no need for them to establish any form of causality in their theories.

Finally, you can never really establish a causal link between two occurences anyway, so your killer argument has literally no feet to stand on.

[/quote]

It’s a category of perception? Sure you don’t want a do over?

Ok, so prove it. How are causal relationships a symptom of perception, or bound, or related in someway? I am sure your answer will at least be better than bodygaurds’.[/quote]

Prove it’s not.

Oh wait, that’s right, it HASN’T BEEN PROVEN EITHER WAY!! End fucking discussion. Of course, if you can prove your position, I suggest you immediately prepare your findings and submit them for peer review so that you may receive an award. And maybe you can crack time travel and other mysteries next. [/quote]

The people who have proven my position have been duly awarded. But thanks.
Second, I can prove it and have, whether you understand it is a different question. I have recently learned that making an argument and somebody understanding it are two different things. And have, perception ain’t got shit to do with it. Things exist for a reason whether we know them or not.

What causation has not been, is disproven, ever. I mean never ever. Go look it up. I encourage you to not trust me and look it up.

But you made the claim that causation is subject to perception. There’s your claim, where’s your proof?

He who makes the claim must provide the proof. I have fulfilled that many times over.

pat · March 3, 2011, 2:37am

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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]

The premise? Oh yeah, it’s causation. Thought I mentioned that, but if I was remiss, it’s causation.

serious debate? LOL! Is that what this is? Silly me. Continuously throwing extremely bad versions of ‘logic’ at me is not exactely what I’d call serious debate. But keep going…[/quote]

Is this really all there is to you? Seriously? Pull your dress down and answer the question instead of trying to be so cute. Causation. Causation what. STATE your premise. [/quote]

Causation is the premise. Really, how hard is that to figure out? If you can identify one single little tiny thing that exists uncaused then you’ve either found God or you have shredded the argument to smithereens. Entire forests have been laid to waste over the topic. I am only concerned with the base up it, causes necessitate their effects, and sufficient reason, which is just another way to word causation. That’s the fucking premise. You’re the first person I have seen that doesn’t get that.[/quote]

Well, even if you don’t agree, you’re the first person I have seen that dogmatically avoids acknowledging that what you perceive as “caused” is wholly dependent upon your perception of the known universe. We’ve already established that there is a hidden universe; physics and laws that are beyond our perception. I understood your stupid argument the moment you typed it. And I understood the weakness to that argument the moment you typed it. And I understood that forests have been destroyed over the topic. Entire forests have not been laid to waste describing it as fact. So what exactly don’t I get Baby Einstein?[/quote]

That shot strait over your head.

Let’s take a different approach. Explain to me, since we cannot necessarily percieve causal relationships, how they are limited by perception?
This ought to be good.
[/quote]

The only head anything is going over is yours. And you’re distorting the question to serve your attempts at “intellectual” obfuscation. We DO perceive simple causal relationships you stubborn boob! That’s the point - our perception of causation. But our perception of causation may be very different than how the universe actually behaves. If you were a two dimensional character (and apparently you are), a sphere would appear to you as a flat circle. However, the sphere is still there, you just can’t see it and you cannot perceive it - no more than you or I can “perceive” 11 dimensions, if they exist. Just because you perceive “causation” (which your premise is based upon) does not mean it’s the immutable law of the universe. You live and exist among causation. The reason forests have been plundered arguing this PHILOSOPHICAL question is because man cannot perceive anything other than a caused existence. You can no more “perceive” an uncaused existence anymore than you can perceive 11 dimensions or, in the case of the 2 dimensional character, a sphere. It’s a circular endeavor. [/quote]

You have just managed to disprove your own argument. I am literally laughing out loud…WOW!

‘no more than you or I can “perceive” 11 dimensions’ LOL!!! You cannot perceive what was inferred from using mathematics (a form of deductive argument)which is beyond our perception. I am still laughing.
So to paraphrase:
‘You cannot go beyond your perception, see there’s something beyond our perception can you imagine it!’
Holy crap dude. When trying to prove we our bound by our perception, it’s probably best not to use an example of something beyond our perception.

You can ignore my previous post, you did all the work for me.

Hey if you wanna keep hanging yourself, I keep giving you the rope.

pat · March 3, 2011, 2:42am

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You misunderstand. Temporally eternal is a one dimensional view of eternity. Further, anything that exists outside of time is time independent. There’s loads of things that fit that definition which are not God. [/quote]

So, please list the things that exist outside of time and are “time independent” as you call it. [/quote]

Metaphysical entities: laws, theories, truths, numbers, math, etc. The list is quite infinite. If it’s not made of matter, time has no hold on it.[/quote]

Laws, theories, truths, numbers, math are perceptions and observations that exist inside the mind of man. Man is subject to time. Remove all of man, and these things do not exist. Name one thing that exists independent of time that is not contingent upon man.[/quote]

Once again, incorrect. They exist whether man exists or not. When man could not add ‘2+2’ still equaled 4. If not, then what did it equal.
[/quote]

“Once again”, you’re being obtuse (I’m being kind). You really fail to realize the concept of “math” and numbers exist in man’s mind and is a way to express that which he perceives, either directly or indirectly? You really miss that? Are you telling me that the universe does “math” absent man? [/quote]

Yes, you are too kind! Sorry I am still laughing from the last one.
The universe ‘does math’ all the time, if it did not, math would be useless to make observations of it.

Tiribulus · March 3, 2011, 1:17pm

[quote]pat wrote:<<< First, that’s not why God punishes the King. He punishes the king for arrogance and 'in his heart to destroy and cut off many nations. It says it right there in black and white. >>>[/quote]You’re consistent Pat. I’ll give ya that.[quote]pat wrote:The universe ‘does math’ all the time, if it did not, math would be useless to make observations of it.[/quote]Could you please talk about this a bit more.

forlife · March 3, 2011, 5:15pm

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, thanks for your response. I have a few points, but am trying to prioritize the most important, so will ask this question first:

What if “information” is noncontingent?

You seem to be taking the position that matter and energy are ultimately comprised of information. So what if this information was never created, and is noncontingent?[/quote]

Well we’re starting a slippery slope. If not this, then what about what’s next? We don’t really know shit about ‘information’ except mathematics tells us it’s there, maybe. We don’t know if it’s divisible, or not. But the same simple rules apply, why is it there, where did it come from, and how did it get there?
If the questions are not applicable, how come?[/quote]

Since we don’t know shit about it, except that it can’t be created, doesn’t that give you pause in concluding the cosmological argument must be true? I sure don’t feel knowledgeable enough to draw any conclusions at this point.

On your questions:

Why is it there?
Why are you assuming there has to be a reason it is there? If it wasn’t created, there is no why.
[/quote]
Correct, except we haven’t sufficiently established it wasn’t. We don’t even know if it even exists. Can you establish it exists for no reason other than it’s there? With out more knowledge of it, we can’t know that. That’s the problem with empirical facts. It constantly requires info to establish.

Exactly. We can’t know. We can only speculate, based on what we actually do know. We know that ME can’t be created, and if ME is ultimately comprised of information, it logically follows that information can’t be created either.

My argument is that information is uncaused. As to whether or not it can cause, I don’t know enough to speculate. We do know that ME can cause interactionally, and that ME is uncaused existentially. The same is likely true for information, if in fact ME is comprised of information.

forlife · March 3, 2011, 5:42pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< We aren’t criticizing God; we’re criticizing your fatally flawed ideology of a tyrant god driven by whim and self-gratification.[/quote]Oh, but you are criticizing God. Read Isaiah 10. That would be where God moves on the heart of the king of Assyria to invade and sack Jerusalem even though the king did not so intend. Once the king does indeed “take spoil and seize plunder, and <<<>>> tread them down like the mire of the streets.” because God silently commanded him to, God pronounces judgment on the king AND his army for so doing and not recognizing himself as the mere instrument of the wrath of God against His stiffnecked and backslidden covenant people. The Lord asks sardonically if the axe will boast itself over him who hews with it. He therefore sends a wasting sickness to destroy Assyria’s army.

So we have a king who has no intention of invading Israel on his own, but God gives him the intention and that without the king even knowing.

The king does what God purposed him to do.

God punishes the king and his army for destroying Israel and taking the credit.

I have no illusions. Scripture carries no real weight you or most of the other people here so you’ll just skip over this like you and they do all the other scripture I post and go right on making disingenuous pronouncements about a God you hate while sniveling about how I never answer anybody. Repent, believe the gospel, throw yourself on His mercy and live.
[/quote]

What is more likely:

God forces a man to commit evil, then punishes him for doing so.
God allows a man to choose evil, then punishes him for doing so. Had the man chosen good, God would have fulfilled his purpose in another way.

You are guilty of straining at a gnat, but swallowing a camel. You cherry pick a small number of verses in the bible that could be misconstrued, while blindly ignoring the 99.9% of verses that clearly state men have free will, call men to repentance, and implore them to accept the saving grace of Christ.

Because of this heretical misinterpretation of scripture, I actually consider Calvin to be an anti-Christ. Paul warned of wolves in sheep’s clothing that would come in the last days, and Calvin was clearly one of them.

Here’s a hint:

James 1:13
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

TheBodyGuard · March 3, 2011, 5:48pm

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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]

The premise? Oh yeah, it’s causation. Thought I mentioned that, but if I was remiss, it’s causation.

serious debate? LOL! Is that what this is? Silly me. Continuously throwing extremely bad versions of ‘logic’ at me is not exactely what I’d call serious debate. But keep going…[/quote]

Is this really all there is to you? Seriously? Pull your dress down and answer the question instead of trying to be so cute. Causation. Causation what. STATE your premise. [/quote]

Causation is the premise. Really, how hard is that to figure out? If you can identify one single little tiny thing that exists uncaused then you’ve either found God or you have shredded the argument to smithereens. Entire forests have been laid to waste over the topic. I am only concerned with the base up it, causes necessitate their effects, and sufficient reason, which is just another way to word causation. That’s the fucking premise. You’re the first person I have seen that doesn’t get that.[/quote]

And yet again, causality is a category of perception.

You are in effect only arguing that you cannot think an uncaused thing, which is neither here nor there when it comes to the existence of such a thing.

Since the natural sciences are positvist endeavours anyway, there really is no need for them to establish any form of causality in their theories.

Finally, you can never really establish a causal link between two occurences anyway, so your killer argument has literally no feet to stand on.

[/quote]

It’s a category of perception? Sure you don’t want a do over?

Ok, so prove it. How are causal relationships a symptom of perception, or bound, or related in someway? I am sure your answer will at least be better than bodygaurds’.[/quote]

Prove it’s not.

Oh wait, that’s right, it HASN’T BEEN PROVEN EITHER WAY!! End fucking discussion. Of course, if you can prove your position, I suggest you immediately prepare your findings and submit them for peer review so that you may receive an award. And maybe you can crack time travel and other mysteries next. [/quote]

The people who have proven my position have been duly awarded. But thanks.
Second, I can prove it and have, whether you understand it is a different question. I have recently learned that making an argument and somebody understanding it are two different things. And have, perception ain’t got shit to do with it. Things exist for a reason whether we know them or not.

What causation has not been, is disproven, ever. I mean never ever. Go look it up. I encourage you to not trust me and look it up.

But you made the claim that causation is subject to perception. There’s your claim, where’s your proof?

He who makes the claim must provide the proof. I have fulfilled that many times over.[/quote]

Please provide the reference and/or citation where causation has been proven. Name the parties that proved it and the awards they received. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

TheBodyGuard · March 3, 2011, 5:54pm

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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]

The premise? Oh yeah, it’s causation. Thought I mentioned that, but if I was remiss, it’s causation.

serious debate? LOL! Is that what this is? Silly me. Continuously throwing extremely bad versions of ‘logic’ at me is not exactely what I’d call serious debate. But keep going…[/quote]

Is this really all there is to you? Seriously? Pull your dress down and answer the question instead of trying to be so cute. Causation. Causation what. STATE your premise. [/quote]

Causation is the premise. Really, how hard is that to figure out? If you can identify one single little tiny thing that exists uncaused then you’ve either found God or you have shredded the argument to smithereens. Entire forests have been laid to waste over the topic. I am only concerned with the base up it, causes necessitate their effects, and sufficient reason, which is just another way to word causation. That’s the fucking premise. You’re the first person I have seen that doesn’t get that.[/quote]

Well, even if you don’t agree, you’re the first person I have seen that dogmatically avoids acknowledging that what you perceive as “caused” is wholly dependent upon your perception of the known universe. We’ve already established that there is a hidden universe; physics and laws that are beyond our perception. I understood your stupid argument the moment you typed it. And I understood the weakness to that argument the moment you typed it. And I understood that forests have been destroyed over the topic. Entire forests have not been laid to waste describing it as fact. So what exactly don’t I get Baby Einstein?[/quote]

That shot strait over your head.

Let’s take a different approach. Explain to me, since we cannot necessarily percieve causal relationships, how they are limited by perception?
This ought to be good.
[/quote]

The only head anything is going over is yours. And you’re distorting the question to serve your attempts at “intellectual” obfuscation. We DO perceive simple causal relationships you stubborn boob! That’s the point - our perception of causation. But our perception of causation may be very different than how the universe actually behaves. If you were a two dimensional character (and apparently you are), a sphere would appear to you as a flat circle. However, the sphere is still there, you just can’t see it and you cannot perceive it - no more than you or I can “perceive” 11 dimensions, if they exist. Just because you perceive “causation” (which your premise is based upon) does not mean it’s the immutable law of the universe. You live and exist among causation. The reason forests have been plundered arguing this PHILOSOPHICAL question is because man cannot perceive anything other than a caused existence. You can no more “perceive” an uncaused existence anymore than you can perceive 11 dimensions or, in the case of the 2 dimensional character, a sphere. It’s a circular endeavor. [/quote]

You have just managed to disprove your own argument. I am literally laughing out loud…WOW!

‘no more than you or I can “perceive” 11 dimensions’ LOL!!! You cannot perceive what was inferred from using mathematics (a form of deductive argument)which is beyond our perception. I am still laughing.
So to paraphrase:
‘You cannot go beyond your perception, see there’s something beyond our perception can you imagine it!’
Holy crap dude. When trying to prove we our bound by our perception, it’s probably best not to use an example of something beyond our perception.

You can ignore my previous post, you did all the work for me.

Hey if you wanna keep hanging yourself, I keep giving you the rope.[/quote]

You’re butchering my point and talking in circles. You’re also talking in circles.

Can you perceive the 11 dimensions that some say might exist? The answer is no. You cannot perceive 11 dimensions anymore than the 2 dimensional character can perceived 3 because you cannot EXPERIENCE them. You might be able to theorize about them with math, but you do not experience them, therefore you do not perceive them.

Still following?

You experience causation in everyday life. You perceive it. Nothing appears to “exist” to you without it. However, as in the case of the 11 possible dimensions, 7 of which we do not experience, there could be something BEYOND causation at work in the universe. It’s pretty simple and I didn’t even make it up on my own. It’s pretty much been the rebuttal to the cosmological argument. Want references?

TheBodyGuard · March 3, 2011, 5:56pm

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You misunderstand. Temporally eternal is a one dimensional view of eternity. Further, anything that exists outside of time is time independent. There’s loads of things that fit that definition which are not God. [/quote]

So, please list the things that exist outside of time and are “time independent” as you call it. [/quote]

Metaphysical entities: laws, theories, truths, numbers, math, etc. The list is quite infinite. If it’s not made of matter, time has no hold on it.[/quote]

Laws, theories, truths, numbers, math are perceptions and observations that exist inside the mind of man. Man is subject to time. Remove all of man, and these things do not exist. Name one thing that exists independent of time that is not contingent upon man.[/quote]

Once again, incorrect. They exist whether man exists or not. When man could not add ‘2+2’ still equaled 4. If not, then what did it equal.
[/quote]

“Once again”, you’re being obtuse (I’m being kind). You really fail to realize the concept of “math” and numbers exist in man’s mind and is a way to express that which he perceives, either directly or indirectly? You really miss that? Are you telling me that the universe does “math” absent man? [/quote]

Yes, you are too kind! Sorry I am still laughing from the last one.
The universe ‘does math’ all the time, if it did not, math would be useless to make observations of it.
[/quote]

Wrong. Math is a human construct. Humans engage in math, the universe does not. But like you say, you’re stating the universe does math without man. I reply to you, “prove it”. You made a claim, now prove it.

forlife · March 3, 2011, 6:17pm

Math is language, nothing more.

It’s a trick question. I represented my high school in a math competition, where we had to be interviewed by a panel of university math professors. They asked me if math was discovered or created. I answered that math was discovered.

I was wrong.

TheBodyGuard · March 3, 2011, 6:30pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
Math is language, nothing more.

It’s a trick question. I represented my high school in a math competition, where we had to be interviewed by a panel of university math professors. They asked me if math was discovered or created. I answered that math was discovered.

I was wrong.[/quote]

We all know this. He’s engaging in word play and he thinks he’s clever.

pat · March 3, 2011, 7:58pm

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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]

The premise? Oh yeah, it’s causation. Thought I mentioned that, but if I was remiss, it’s causation.

serious debate? LOL! Is that what this is? Silly me. Continuously throwing extremely bad versions of ‘logic’ at me is not exactely what I’d call serious debate. But keep going…[/quote]

Is this really all there is to you? Seriously? Pull your dress down and answer the question instead of trying to be so cute. Causation. Causation what. STATE your premise. [/quote]

Causation is the premise. Really, how hard is that to figure out? If you can identify one single little tiny thing that exists uncaused then you’ve either found God or you have shredded the argument to smithereens. Entire forests have been laid to waste over the topic. I am only concerned with the base up it, causes necessitate their effects, and sufficient reason, which is just another way to word causation. That’s the fucking premise. You’re the first person I have seen that doesn’t get that.[/quote]

And yet again, causality is a category of perception.

You are in effect only arguing that you cannot think an uncaused thing, which is neither here nor there when it comes to the existence of such a thing.

Since the natural sciences are positvist endeavours anyway, there really is no need for them to establish any form of causality in their theories.

Finally, you can never really establish a causal link between two occurences anyway, so your killer argument has literally no feet to stand on.

[/quote]

It’s a category of perception? Sure you don’t want a do over?

Ok, so prove it. How are causal relationships a symptom of perception, or bound, or related in someway? I am sure your answer will at least be better than bodygaurds’.[/quote]

Prove it’s not.

Oh wait, that’s right, it HASN’T BEEN PROVEN EITHER WAY!! End fucking discussion. Of course, if you can prove your position, I suggest you immediately prepare your findings and submit them for peer review so that you may receive an award. And maybe you can crack time travel and other mysteries next. [/quote]

The people who have proven my position have been duly awarded. But thanks.
Second, I can prove it and have, whether you understand it is a different question. I have recently learned that making an argument and somebody understanding it are two different things. And have, perception ain’t got shit to do with it. Things exist for a reason whether we know them or not.

What causation has not been, is disproven, ever. I mean never ever. Go look it up. I encourage you to not trust me and look it up.

But you made the claim that causation is subject to perception. There’s your claim, where’s your proof?

He who makes the claim must provide the proof. I have fulfilled that many times over.[/quote]

Please provide the reference and/or citation where causation has been proven. Name the parties that proved it and the awards they received. Go ahead, I’ll wait. [/quote]

I fucking did, right from the begining…
Aristotle, Descarte, Einstein, Kant, Hume, Leibniz, Bohm, Smolin, Newton, Sckotus, Okham,

http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=causality

http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/

http://www.yale.edu/cogdevlab/aarticles/Structural%20Determinants%20of%20Causal%20Systems.pdf

etc, etc, etc…

pat · March 3, 2011, 8:26pm