Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
721

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Ok your argument is that information is uncaused, what are the premises? How would that debunk the principal of sufficient reason.[/quote]

The premise is that information cannot be created, based on the fact that ME cannot be created.

We’re talking specifically about Schopenhauer principle of sufficient reason of being, as opposed to acting, becoming, or knowing.

That principle is inherently limited in application, because it specifically invokes space and time. It says nothing about objects that were never created, and thus isn’t violated by such objects.

ME (and presumably information) was never created. Thus, it has no requisite reason for being.[/quote]

That’s circular. It’s here because it’s here? No, it’s not. Is not ‘information’ the building block for all matter and energy? Wouldn’t this ‘information’ be a “genetic” code for that which contains it? That would be the reason, or at least one of the reasons.

No we’re talking about Leibniz and Spinoza. And if we were talking Schopenhauer’s principles of sufficient, I’d be using the one referring to knowing.

This is a much better explanation, the Wiki page is missing stuff.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/[/quote]

I never said it’s here because it’s here.

I said it was never created, and it has no mystical purpose beyond simply being.

The need to find a higher answer in everything is human, but it’s illogical to hold the universe accountable for meeting that need.

Please reconcile the following:

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

Matter and energy cannot be created.

Either the bible is wrong, or the laws of thermodynamics are wrong. I find the laws of science a lot more credible.

722

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Ok your argument is that information is uncaused, what are the premises? How would that debunk the principal of sufficient reason.[/quote]

The premise is that information cannot be created, based on the fact that ME cannot be created.

We’re talking specifically about Schopenhauer principle of sufficient reason of being, as opposed to acting, becoming, or knowing.

That principle is inherently limited in application, because it specifically invokes space and time. It says nothing about objects that were never created, and thus isn’t violated by such objects.

ME (and presumably information) was never created. Thus, it has no requisite reason for being.[/quote]

That’s circular. It’s here because it’s here? No, it’s not. Is not ‘information’ the building block for all matter and energy? Wouldn’t this ‘information’ be a “genetic” code for that which contains it? That would be the reason, or at least one of the reasons.

No we’re talking about Leibniz and Spinoza. And if we were talking Schopenhauer’s principles of sufficient, I’d be using the one referring to knowing.

This is a much better explanation, the Wiki page is missing stuff.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/[/quote]

I never said it’s here because it’s here.

I said it was never created, and it has no mystical purpose beyond simply being.

The need to find a higher answer in everything is human, but it’s illogical to hold the universe accountable for meeting that need.

Please reconcile the following:

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

Matter and energy cannot be created.

Either the bible is wrong, or the laws of thermodynamics are wrong. I find the laws of science a lot more credible.[/quote]

“I said it was never created, and it has no mystical purpose beyond simply being” ← That is the same thing as saying it’s here. And who said it’s purpose is mystical? Isn’t what it’s used for sufficient for it’s reason to exist? Further, what drives it? Since it cannot do anything on it’s own unless acted upon, what’s the mechanism of action?

Thermodynamics only refers to the universe as we know it now, first. Second, that’s only for closed systems with high entropy. Because of the universe’s high entropy, it is thought to be isolated, because of the fact that it’s expansion is accelerating and black holes, the universe is thought to be open. It’s about a 50/50 split on open versus closed. If it’s open, which it may very well be, doesn’t explain much because matter and energy can go away and other energy can come into it. If it’s closed, energy can leave, but it cannot come back. Where does it go? Nobody knows, but the afore mentioned other dimensions are thought to be the repository. This is the problem with empiricism, it tends to create more questions than it answers. And as history has taught us, has a habit of being misunderstood or flat wrong.

What’s also not known about information is if it’s is material, or physical, or non-physical. Either fits perfectly with cosmology. I personally think it’s non-physical.

I am not arguing Gensis 1:1, why did you bring it up?

Thermodynamics and Gen 1:1 are not incompatible, but I am not sure what that has to do with anything.

Lastly, as stated before, in a state of timelessness, things can be both created and eternal, and it is at least possible that basal information, or even matter and energy can both be created and eternal.

723

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

Math is language? What does it communicate?

How do you create something that already exists? [/quote]

Look up Mathematics as Language on Wiki.

Math is nothing more than a description of what we perceive in the universe. If I see four apples, I can quantity those objects with a number, but the number is only a description of what I’m seeing. The number four doesn’t objectively exist. It is a construct we use to quantify what does exist. Identically to calling the apples red.[/quote]

And that isn’t a metaphysical construct how exactly? Further, just because we use math to quantify things doesn’t mean it’s imagined, if is were it would be arbitrary, but it’s not it’s static. Can you think of any instance where 4 single things grouped would not be 4 things?

I’ll look that up. But I expect then that you’ll read the stuff I offer.[/quote]

I do read the stuff you offer. In fact, in the math theory link you provided yesterday, there were quite a few theories on math, including several that assert math is only a description of reality (constructivist theory, language theory, etc.) and not something that was discovered.

As with the cosmological argument, we are very limited in our understanding, and there are many viable alternate theories. We simply don’t know enough to draw any reliable conclusions on such enormous questions, at this point.[/quote]

Ok, bring up a viable alternative theory. We can discuss it.

724

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Ok, bring up a viable alternative theory. We can discuss it. [/quote]He did. You missed it.
Forlife said:[quote]In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.[/quote]Allow this to define the laws of logic and thermodynamics and you will see how comically futile (but entertaining) this entire line of autonomous human quibbling actually is. See Pat, you, like him, are attempting to support your theory of reality on self existent and self verifying universal abstractions in the form of all governing constructs of thought, “laws”, before which both your god and forlife’s godless universe must bow. They are in the end the same thing. Both the methods and the conclusions. They derive from finite fallen man’s bondage to his own sinful finitude and not the Word of God.

As long as amoral, impersonal, universally binding (or are they? =] ) “laws” of thought, and by extension laws of science, are given the idolatrous authority of final arbiter then the positions put forward by Forlife and Bodyguard and every other God hating pagan you’ll ever meet make far more sense than belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I’ll say again. The “laws” of logic are valid and binding when properly subordinated to the infinite mind of the most high God who is their author. Break down and face it. ALL human reasoning is eventually circular. Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s reasoning, and yours, and these guys in this forum, keep arguing against somebody else’s circular logic as if it could possibly ever be otherwise. It’s ALL circular.

Paul’s, Augustine’s, Calvin’s and Van Til’s and mine? We self consciously worship the God in whom it is not possible for contradiction to exist and assume before all else that any perceived inconsistency is the unavoidable function of not only OUR humble derivative creatureliness, but also OUR sin as an even further impediment to clear thinking on ultimate questions. Yes, the answer to “HOW CAN ____________ POSSIBLY BE?!” is that the God all creation for reasons sufficient unto Himself has designed and ordered it so, to His own purpose and glory. The most humbling and awesome of comforts to the redeemed of the Lord and the most pathetic of childish copouts to the heart yet dead in trespasses and sins.

725

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Ok, bring up a viable alternative theory. We can discuss it. [/quote]He did. You missed it.
Forlife said:[quote]In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.[/quote]Allow this to define the laws of logic and thermodynamics and you will see how comically futile (but entertaining) this entire line of autonomous human quibbling actually is. See Pat, you, like him, are attempting to support your theory of reality on self existent and self verifying universal abstractions in the form of all governing constructs of thought, “laws”, before which both your god and forlife’s godless universe must bow. They are in the end the same thing. Both the methods and the conclusions. They derive from finite fallen man’s bondage to his own sinful finitude and not the Word of God.

As long as amoral, impersonal, universally binding (or are they? =] ) “laws” of thought, and by extension laws of science, are given the idolatrous authority of final arbiter then the positions put forward by Forlife and Bodyguard and every other God hating pagan you’ll ever meet make far more sense than belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I’ll say again. The “laws” of logic are valid and binding when properly subordinated to the infinite mind of the most high God who is their author. Break down and face it. ALL human reasoning is eventually circular. Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s reasoning, and yours, and these guys in this forum, keep arguing against somebody else’s circular logic as if it could possibly ever be otherwise. It’s ALL circular.

Paul’s, Augustine’s, Calvin’s and Van Til’s and mine? We self consciously worship the God in whom it is not possible for contradiction to exist and assume before all else that any perceived inconsistency is the unavoidable function of not only OUR humble derivative creatureliness, but also OUR sin as an even further impediment to clear thinking on ultimate questions. Yes, the answer to “HOW CAN ____________ POSSIBLY BE?!” is that the God all creation for reasons sufficient unto Himself has designed and ordered it so, to His own purpose and glory. The most humbling and awesome of comforts to the redeemed of the Lord and the most pathetic of childish copouts to the heart yet dead in trespasses and sins.[/quote]

It’s not a bible based argument, Tirib. If you want futile, shove scripture down the throat of someone who does not believe in God. If you believe the bible, it presupposes you believe in God.
Agian, you act as if you are a biblical literalist, but in reality, you only cherry pick what you want to be literal too. If you want examples I will give them…
Gen. chap. 1 is not a literal account, if it were, chap 2 would not be necessary, because it is a different account of creation.
This is not a religious discussion. We are not discussing religion or scripture. We are discussing causation, contingent and non-contingent things.

I won’t waste much time since you never respond honestly to posts, this is not a scriptural account. Beating someone over the head with a bible isn’t going to inform anyone anything. forlife has proven he knows and understands scripture better that you do.

The bible is not a history book, or a science book. It’s not the “Great big book of everything with everything inside”
The bible is concerned with divinity, we are discussing philosophy and science. If you think it’s all bull, then back away from the computer, becuase it’s not scriptural.

726

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
SMFH

There is no evicence, beyond your exprience with the universe, that “A precipates B”. That’s your perception. The cosmological argument is not scientific fact. It is a disputed theory. Period. And you know that. [/quote]

You could have stopped with the first 4 words; exactely, no evidence.

““A precipates B”. That’s your perception.” <-No, that’s your perception of my perception. I have never said anything remotely close to that.

“The cosmological argument is not scientific fact.” ← I never claimed that either, it’s just a plain fact, and science is bound by it though.

“It is a disputed theory. Period.” Has been for well over 2000 years, what it has not been, is proven wrong.[/quote]

Again, you were engaging in word games, and intellectual dishonesty. You knew exactly what I was getting at, and you were hiding behind semantics.

I disagree causation is “a plain fact” - not when we are beginning to understand the invisible nature of the universe. And in my opinion, quantum mechanics does enough to undermine causation to make me legitimately question it. In fact, gravity itself makes me question causation and that would be another interesting discussion.

You say, “it has been for well over 2000 years, what is has not been, is proven wrong” - and I reply, it has not been proven right. So again, we’re intellectually masturbating for pages over words to find out we actually do not disagree in principle.

I can accept the cosmological argument modified by “if everything is indeed caused…”. Right now, we do not know and there is enough growing evidence to suggest that “everything may not be caused”. If the argument has indeed been waging for 2000 years, I think we are fortunate it will not be waged another 2000 years.

727

[quote]pat wrote:
This is the problem with empiricism, it tends to create more questions than it answers. And as history has taught us, has a habit of being misunderstood or flat wrong.
[/quote]

Isn’t the root of the cosmological argument based on empiricism? “events are causally dependent or contingent”?

728

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Ok, bring up a viable alternative theory. We can discuss it. [/quote]He did. You missed it.
Forlife said:[quote]In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.[/quote]Allow this to define the laws of logic and thermodynamics and you will see how comically futile (but entertaining) this entire line of autonomous human quibbling actually is. See Pat, you, like him, are attempting to support your theory of reality on self existent and self verifying universal abstractions in the form of all governing constructs of thought, “laws”, before which both your god and forlife’s godless universe must bow. They are in the end the same thing. Both the methods and the conclusions. They derive from finite fallen man’s bondage to his own sinful finitude and not the Word of God.

As long as amoral, impersonal, universally binding (or are they? =] ) “laws” of thought, and by extension laws of science, are given the idolatrous authority of final arbiter then the positions put forward by Forlife and Bodyguard and every other God hating pagan you’ll ever meet make far more sense than belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I’ll say again. The “laws” of logic are valid and binding when properly subordinated to the infinite mind of the most high God who is their author. Break down and face it. ALL human reasoning is eventually circular. Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s reasoning, and yours, and these guys in this forum, keep arguing against somebody else’s circular logic as if it could possibly ever be otherwise. It’s ALL circular.

Paul’s, Augustine’s, Calvin’s and Van Til’s and mine? We self consciously worship the God in whom it is not possible for contradiction to exist and assume before all else that any perceived inconsistency is the unavoidable function of not only OUR humble derivative creatureliness, but also OUR sin as an even further impediment to clear thinking on ultimate questions. Yes, the answer to “HOW CAN ____________ POSSIBLY BE?!” is that the God all creation for reasons sufficient unto Himself has designed and ordered it so, to His own purpose and glory. The most humbling and awesome of comforts to the redeemed of the Lord and the most pathetic of childish copouts to the heart yet dead in trespasses and sins.[/quote]

I actually agreed with much of your logic above because you are really stating what I’ve been stating for pages; that the human experience is limited and ignorant.

And then you had to throw in “God hating pagan”. And therein lies the root of my problem with religion. I am NOT a “God hating pagan”. I simply reject religion. I’ve already stated I do believe in a higher being, an intelligence, I just don’t accept what I consider to be a construct of man. Would you call a Muslim of “god hating pagan?” I bet you would and THAT is the reason I reject religion.

I think RELIGION is “from finite fallen man’s bondage to his own sinful finitude and not the Word of God.” In my opinion, if and when “God” does indeed speak with us, Muslim, Jew, Christian et als. will cease to exist.

Finally, does every discussion about religion need to disintegrate to personal attacks?

729

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< I actually agreed with much of your logic above because you are really stating what I’ve been stating for pages; that the human experience is limited and ignorant. >>>[/quote]Indeed and if I were to concede your epistemology I would also concede your ontology or at least concede that your skeptical ontology is more likely than anybody’s vanilla theism. I mean that. However, unlike Aquinas and Pat and Chris, I utterly reject your epistemology and by extension ontology in the strongest possible terms. I can therefore legitimately disagree with you. Pat and Chris have been taking blind groping stabs at disagreeing with you all along here, but inadvertently and unavoidably wind up on your page and under your logical thumb and not just yours. It need not be so for the true biblical theist, but try telling them that. You and they have far too much in common [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:And then you had to throw in “God hating pagan”. And therein lies the root of my problem with religion. I am NOT a “God hating pagan”. I simply reject religion. I’ve already stated I do believe in a higher being, an intelligence, I just don’t accept what I consider to be a construct of man. >>>[/quote]Ohhhh, I understand completely given your epistemology. On that basis you would be correct. The trouble is, according the incarnate Son of the only true and living God, he who is not with Him is against Him and being that His revealed epistemology by definition erases yours, you are not at liberty to independently form that autonomous opinion. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:Would you call a Muslim of “god hating pagan?” I bet you would and THAT is the reason I reject religion. >>>[/quote]And you would win that bet. There is but one only most high triune God, eternally existing in three persons, revealed to men as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Neither dividing the substance nor confusing the persons. That God has ordained also but one only acceptable means and method for pleasing Him. All others are fatally sinful objects and practices of damnable idolatry. His words.[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote: <<<I think RELIGION is “from finite fallen man’s bondage to his own sinful finitude and not the Word of God.” >>>[/quote]In most cases so do I [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< In my opinion, if and when “God” does indeed speak with us, Muslim, Jew, Christian et als. will cease to exist. >>>[/quote]God HAS spoken to us in His Son (See the Gospel of John chapter 1 and the 1st chapter of the book of Hebrews) and He is wholly uninterested in your opinion… or mine. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Finally, does every discussion about religion need to disintegrate to personal attacks?[/quote] Fair enough. Perhaps I should be a bit more judicious in my use of ecclesiastical pejoratives. I will try.

730

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< I actually agreed with much of your logic above because you are really stating what I’ve been stating for pages; that the human experience is limited and ignorant. >>>[/quote]Indeed and if I were to concede your epistemology I would also concede your ontology or at least concede that your skeptical ontology is more likely than anybody’s vanilla theism. I mean that. However, unlike Aquinas and Pat and Chris, I utterly reject your epistemology and by extension ontology in the strongest possible terms. I can therefore legitimately disagree with you. Pat and Chris have been taking blind groping stabs at disagreeing with you all along here, but inadvertently and unavoidably wind up on your page and under your logical thumb and not just yours. It need not be so for the true biblical theist, but try telling them that. You and they have far too much in common [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:And then you had to throw in “God hating pagan”. And therein lies the root of my problem with religion. I am NOT a “God hating pagan”. I simply reject religion. I’ve already stated I do believe in a higher being, an intelligence, I just don’t accept what I consider to be a construct of man. >>>[/quote]Ohhhh, I understand completely given your epistemology. On that basis you would be correct. The trouble is, according the incarnate Son of the only true and living God, he who is not with Him is against Him and being that His revealed epistemology by definition erases yours, you are not at liberty to independently form that autonomous opinion. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:Would you call a Muslim of “god hating pagan?” I bet you would and THAT is the reason I reject religion. >>>[/quote]And you would win that bet. There is but one only most high triune God, eternally existing in three persons, revealed to men as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Neither dividing the substance nor confusing the persons. That God has ordained also but one only acceptable means and method for pleasing Him. All others are fatally sinful objects and practices of damnable idolatry. His words.[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote: <<<I think RELIGION is “from finite fallen man’s bondage to his own sinful finitude and not the Word of God.” >>>[/quote]In most cases so do I [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< In my opinion, if and when “God” does indeed speak with us, Muslim, Jew, Christian et als. will cease to exist. >>>[/quote]God HAS spoken to us in His Son (See the Gospel of John chapter 1 and the 1st chapter of the book of Hebrews) and He is wholly uninterested in your opinion… or mine. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Finally, does every discussion about religion need to disintegrate to personal attacks?[/quote] Fair enough. Perhaps I should be a bit more judicious in my use of ecclesiastical pejoratives. I will try.
[/quote]

And this is why war is waged in the name of religion. You cannot reason with the above. Distilled to its basic properties you are saying nothing more than “I’m right and everyone else and their beliefs are wrong.” There isn’t much wiggle room there for anyone else to exist now is there?

731

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< And this is why war is waged in the name of religion. You cannot reason with the above. Distilled to its basic properties you are saying nothing more than “I’m right and everyone else and their beliefs are wrong.” There isn’t much wiggle room there for anyone else to exist now is there?[/quote]I’m saying the one true God who is actually there is right and everyone else including me is not only wrong, but spiritually dead until born again into new life by His sovereign grace. No, there is no wiggle room in the clear and ubiquitous Revelation of almighty God. This is not about who has the coolest most internally consistent system of belief by the standard of finite sinful men. It’s also not about what I can prove to you. I know better and watching the Catholic and Arminian theists who are unwittingly your philosophical homeboys try is most assuredly demonstrating to me, for the 100th time, how empty an effort that is.

This, to me any way, is about God in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself by making dead people live. I am not overly interested in displaying my nimble intellectual dexterity before the unbelieving world. I’m interested in seeing the kingdom of the God I love and adore advanced for His namesake by faithfully and submissively using whatever gifts and abilities He’s given me for that purpose. My job is to tell you. How you respond is His problem as long as I do not bring reproach or dishonor on His name in the telling. I ask Him all the time to save me from me in that regard.

One thing I’ll say for these forums. They attract smart people. You’re a smart guy as are most of the other people around here. God has blessed you and yes you will be answerable for how you use those gifts. Cortes too BTW. You two didn’t hit off, but he’s a very smart guy too. I don’t meant to slight anyone else, but you reminded me of him.

732

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< And this is why war is waged in the name of religion. You cannot reason with the above. Distilled to its basic properties you are saying nothing more than “I’m right and everyone else and their beliefs are wrong.” There isn’t much wiggle room there for anyone else to exist now is there?[/quote]I’m saying the one true God who is actually there is right and everyone else including me is not only wrong, but spiritually dead until born again into new life by His sovereign grace. No, there is no wiggle room in the clear and ubiquitous Revelation of almighty God. This is not about who has the coolest most internally consistent system of belief by the standard of finite sinful men. It’s also not about what I can prove to you. I know better and watching the Catholic and Arminian theists who are unwittingly your philosophical homeboys try is most assuredly demonstrating to me, for the 100th time, how empty an effort that is.

This, to me any way, is about God in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself by making dead people live. I am not overly interested in displaying my nimble intellectual dexterity before the unbelieving world. I’m interested in seeing the kingdom of the God I love and adore advanced for His namesake by faithfully and submissively using whatever gifts and abilities He’s given me for that purpose. My job is to tell you. How you respond is His problem as long as I do not bring reproach or dishonor on His name in the telling. I ask Him all the time to save me from me in that regard.

One thing I’ll say for these forums. They attract smart people. You’re a smart guy as are most of the other people around here. God has blessed you and yes you will be answerable for how you use those gifts. Cortes too BTW. You two didn’t hit off, but he’s a very smart guy too. I don’t meant to slight anyone else, but you reminded me of him. [/quote]

Well, in fairness to anyone else, we were mostly discussing science, not scripture. Do you not think that science can be debated without being inextricably tied to religion? I’d venture to say you do not. And I’m not sure I disagree with you but, my dialogue wasn’t so much about God as it was about the experience of “causation” and the logical arguments put forth based on our experience with it.

I’m not going to address much of what you wrote above because Muslims, Jews, et als. feel the same way about their faith and therein lies irreconcilable differences which in turn lead to intolerance, hatred and yes, war. The Muslim believes just as firmly and faithfully as you. I’m truly uninterested in such discussions since they always lead to a dead end, but I do think you make some valid points about our finite and ignorant understanding of this creation and that I agree with and has been my point all along.

For instance, science is now teaching us that the problem with observing or attempting to measure that which occurs on the quantum level might be due to our measuring from a classical physics experience and equipment. Taking this argument further, one might wonder if our ultimate problem is attempting to unlock the mind of the divine from the ignorant perspective of man - a literal mission impossible. We can see, but what we see is an illusion of our experience and not truth, in other words.

733

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
This is the problem with empiricism, it tends to create more questions than it answers. And as history has taught us, has a habit of being misunderstood or flat wrong.
[/quote]

Isn’t the root of the cosmological argument based on empiricism? “events are causally dependent or contingent”?[/quote]

No, it’s not, at all. All you can prove with empiricism infer causal relationships via correlation. Speaks nothing at all about sufficient reason, or necessity.
Empiricism falls short because ultimately you cannot prove any empirical component actually exists, deductively. It is always colored by, your favorite fucking word, perception. The observer effect of empiricism is it’s Achilles heal.

734

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
SMFH

There is no evicence, beyond your exprience with the universe, that “A precipates B”. That’s your perception. The cosmological argument is not scientific fact. It is a disputed theory. Period. And you know that. [/quote]

You could have stopped with the first 4 words; exactely, no evidence.

““A precipates B”. That’s your perception.” <-No, that’s your perception of my perception. I have never said anything remotely close to that.

“The cosmological argument is not scientific fact.” ← I never claimed that either, it’s just a plain fact, and science is bound by it though.

“It is a disputed theory. Period.” Has been for well over 2000 years, what it has not been, is proven wrong.[/quote]

Again, you were engaging in word games, and intellectual dishonesty. You knew exactly what I was getting at, and you were hiding behind semantics.

I disagree causation is “a plain fact” - not when we are beginning to understand the invisible nature of the universe. And in my opinion, quantum mechanics does enough to undermine causation to make me legitimately question it. In fact, gravity itself makes me question causation and that would be another interesting discussion.

You say, “it has been for well over 2000 years, what is has not been, is proven wrong” - and I reply, it has not been proven right. So again, we’re intellectually masturbating for pages over words to find out we actually do not disagree in principle.

I can accept the cosmological argument modified by “if everything is indeed caused…”. Right now, we do not know and there is enough growing evidence to suggest that “everything may not be caused”. If the argument has indeed been waging for 2000 years, I think we are fortunate it will not be waged another 2000 years. [/quote]

I know what you meant, you were just wrong. Your biggest problem is that you presume to know what I think and how I arrived at said conclusions. You implied psychic powers are plain bullshit. You consistently pretend to know what I think, know and how I arrived at that. You’re not even close, not even the slightest little bit.

You fail because you don’t understand epistemology.

Really were do you get off?
‘A precipitates B’ isn’t even close.

Yes, you have to prove the cosmological argument wrong, period. I promise you smarter people that you and I have tried. It has never been done. Quantum mechanic does more to prove causation that it does to disprove it. No matter how small you go, no matter how weird the event, there is a reason, a cause and a purpose for it.

You’re task is simple, all you have to do is prove one thing that is not caused. Go quantum, go massive, go spiritual, go satanic, I don’t care, you cannot find it period.

What you need to do is quit presuming what I know and prove ‘it’ wrong. I told you a long time ago, I didn’t make it up, I am supporting it. It isn’t wrong and has never been proven to be wrong.

We can prove causation, that causes necessitates their effects, to the point of paradox, it happens in math, it happens in science, it happens all around.

Find me anything that is uncaused. All you need is one thing uncaused and the whole argument is shot.

Quit attacking me or what you perceive about me and put up, or shut up. It’s really that simple. It’s either right or wrong, prove me wrong.

AND you not understanding what I am saying is not any kind of word play. I speak very direct, if you don’t get that, I can’t help you; it’s not my problem.

If you continue to presume what I think I will return in kind.

If you understood the argument, at all, you’d understand that perception is no issue to it. It’s either true or it’s not, there’s not some cases, there’s no kinda-sorta, it’s either right or wrong, period. Prove it wrong, since that is your stance.

735

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Ok, bring up a viable alternative theory. We can discuss it. [/quote]He did. You missed it.
Forlife said:[quote]In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.[/quote]Allow this to define the laws of logic and thermodynamics and you will see how comically futile (but entertaining) this entire line of autonomous human quibbling actually is. See Pat, you, like him, are attempting to support your theory of reality on self existent and self verifying universal abstractions in the form of all governing constructs of thought, “laws”, before which both your god and forlife’s godless universe must bow. They are in the end the same thing. Both the methods and the conclusions. They derive from finite fallen man’s bondage to his own sinful finitude and not the Word of God.

As long as amoral, impersonal, universally binding (or are they? =] ) “laws” of thought, and by extension laws of science, are given the idolatrous authority of final arbiter then the positions put forward by Forlife and Bodyguard and every other God hating pagan you’ll ever meet make far more sense than belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I’ll say again. The “laws” of logic are valid and binding when properly subordinated to the infinite mind of the most high God who is their author. Break down and face it. ALL human reasoning is eventually circular. Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s reasoning, and yours, and these guys in this forum, keep arguing against somebody else’s circular logic as if it could possibly ever be otherwise. It’s ALL circular.

Paul’s, Augustine’s, Calvin’s and Van Til’s and mine? We self consciously worship the God in whom it is not possible for contradiction to exist and assume before all else that any perceived inconsistency is the unavoidable function of not only OUR humble derivative creatureliness, but also OUR sin as an even further impediment to clear thinking on ultimate questions. Yes, the answer to “HOW CAN ____________ POSSIBLY BE?!” is that the God all creation for reasons sufficient unto Himself has designed and ordered it so, to His own purpose and glory. The most humbling and awesome of comforts to the redeemed of the Lord and the most pathetic of childish copouts to the heart yet dead in trespasses and sins.[/quote]

I actually agreed with much of your logic above because you are really stating what I’ve been stating for pages; that the human experience is limited and ignorant.

And then you had to throw in “God hating pagan”. And therein lies the root of my problem with religion. I am NOT a “God hating pagan”. I simply reject religion. I’ve already stated I do believe in a higher being, an intelligence, I just don’t accept what I consider to be a construct of man. Would you call a Muslim of “god hating pagan?” I bet you would and THAT is the reason I reject religion.

I think RELIGION is “from finite fallen man’s bondage to his own sinful finitude and not the Word of God.” In my opinion, if and when “God” does indeed speak with us, Muslim, Jew, Christian et als. will cease to exist.

Finally, does every discussion about religion need to disintegrate to personal attacks?[/quote]

If you think that ^ was logic, that explains a lot. Tirib is a faithful person. A blindly faithful person. Logic, reason, science, truth are all irrelevant in this world.
That’s fine with me, until I am condemned to hell for not believing ignorant dogma.

I can take tirib more seriously when he is able to engage in honest sincere debate. But if you hide from the tough questions, I have a hard time respecting that.

You have built this little world up in your mind that paradigm is that master of all perceived reality, it’s simply not true. And even when you use examples that prove wrong the very thing you posit, you still don’t get it; even when exposed.

736

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Finally, does every discussion about religion need to disintegrate to personal attacks?[/quote]

No they don’t and many haven’t. But if you start by way of personal attacks, expect to get what you give. You start telling people what to do, or what they think you have leveled a personal attack. From what I have seen, you start by pissing people off, so you are to blame. Don’t even act like you proceed or stick your nose in a debate in good faith. You have an agenda, for instance, you’re trying to tell me I am wrong because I am colored by my perception. Deduction isn’t perceived it’s deduced, hence the name.
You’re about as friendly as a cancer cell.

737

[quote]pat wrote:<<< You fail because you don’t understand epistemology. >>>[/quote]Now that I’ve gotten back up off the floor. I didn’t really just read this?

738

I don’t presume to know anything about what you think. So slow down, because there you go again with the personal attacks which makes any intelligent discussion impossible.

Being unable to prove an unknown does not make it a fact. I don’t have to prove the cosmological argument wrong any more than you can prove it right (which you cannot, and it has not). And proving it wrong as you say was never my position so stop building strawmen. The CA is at best is a logical exercise based upon an unknown. That unknown is it’s Achilles heel.

I still maintain that perception IS relevant because our perception of the universe is limited (there is no legitimate opposition to the foregoing). It is not a stretch to say that our perception of causation may not be complete. Smarter people than you have posited such (I can play that game too). Everything - from the language you use to describe your arguments (or those of others more specifically), to our systems of experimentation, observation and measurement, is limited by our experience. My earlier multiple dimensions comments were illustrative of this point - you cannot experience (and therefore measure and observe) what you cannot experience. If there is in fact something beyond the appearance of causation, and we cannot measure or experience it, we will never know - much the same as the 2 dimensional character will never perceive or measure anything in a 3rd dimension. Oh, that 2d character may theorize about a 3rd dimension and he may even create some fancy math formula to describe it, but he is very unlikely to ever measure it, and observe it. And our 2d character is even more unlikely to ever observe or measure a 4th or maybe more dimensions. Taking it further, we can theorize about the “god particle” and we can even create the math to describe it (we have), but until the LHC or a later invention allows us to “experience” it (observe), it’s only a theory. Well sir, I submit that “causation” may be no more than our observation of the universe from a limited experience. No, I cannot “prove” it. But you cannot prove everything was caused either. Stalemate. I’m open to both possibilities. The CA is “evidence” of nothing. It’s an argument. We both know this, so why all the fuss and personal attacks?

And now, you’re reading my mind? You know my “stance”? I’ve never stated the CA is right or wrong. I essentially argued (correctly) that the CA starts from an empirical observation that may or may not be fact. It starts with an unknown - end of story. When you can “prove” causation as a fact, let me know.

I gave you one example of the “uncaused” prior: radioactive decay. Now prove to me radioactive decay is in fact “caused”. And, from a quantum perspective, the jury is still out on the principle of causality. I believe the dominant view on QM is the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI)? The CI posits that a property of a quantum system is not a reality until after it is observed. I know that the practical application of the the foregoing is subject to debate but it raises interesting questions about our experience (perception) with the universe, how we measure things (and how limited we are in those measurements) and brings me full circle back to the well worn opposition to the CA which you are well aware of. One of the interesting problems raised in QM may be the fact that we see anomalous results because of the physics we use to measure them. In other words, we are limited to our physical reality and devices to measure a quantum system and therein may lie the problem with the results we see. I’m not plagiarizing some reference here so please forgive my limited ability to describe something I don’t spend all day studying.

This is all fascinating stuff and could be a nice discussion. Stop dumbing it down with personal attacks. I’m trying to discuss the subject and I have been for some time and you cannot refrain from doing so without an attack. If that continues, I’m just uninterested in the discussion. Enough is enough. If I offended you prior, I apologize. Now, let’s start over, or don’t. But I’m not going to go back and forth with the personal shit.

739

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
This is the problem with empiricism, it tends to create more questions than it answers. And as history has taught us, has a habit of being misunderstood or flat wrong.
[/quote]

Isn’t the root of the cosmological argument based on empiricism? “events are causally dependent or contingent”?[/quote]

No, it’s not, at all. All you can prove with empiricism infer causal relationships via correlation. Speaks nothing at all about sufficient reason, or necessity.
Empiricism falls short because ultimately you cannot prove any empirical component actually exists, deductively. It is always colored by, your favorite fucking word, perception. The observer effect of empiricism is it’s Achilles heal.[/quote]

So, causation is proven? Is that your position?

740

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Finally, does every discussion about religion need to disintegrate to personal attacks?[/quote]

No they don’t and many haven’t. But if you start by way of personal attacks, expect to get what you give. You start telling people what to do, or what they think you have leveled a personal attack. From what I have seen, you start by pissing people off, so you are to blame. Don’t even act like you proceed or stick your nose in a debate in good faith. You have an agenda, for instance, you’re trying to tell me I am wrong because I am colored by my perception. Deduction isn’t perceived it’s deduced, hence the name.
You’re about as friendly as a cancer cell. [/quote]

Deduction again? Don’t we need to start from a fact for a deduction to be valid? Wouldn’t starting with less than a fact make a deductive argument subject to legitimate dispute? And again, you just can’t stop can you?