Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
741

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Again, you can take exception to the way I have argued my position. Fine. But you have proven nothing and we already settled that the CA is not proven scientific fact. And although you have taken great pains to attack me, you have done very little in the way of deconstructing those examples that you claim prove me wrong.

742

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Nobody here is claim to be a TP. Their theories are handy for supporting causal relationship. We’re not trying to do what they do. Further, the discussion is about God. God is the creator. If you consider him something different we are not talking about the same thing. I use their damn good speculative theories to prove that nothing exists uncaused, save for that which caused with out being caused. Nothing more. I am not sure why think that the postulations by people with a lot of letters behind their names is off limits? We can’t talk about and use it? Why? Is it sacred in some way? We can only butcher it if we regurgitate the information incorrectly. If we have not, then we have not done anybody any injustice. We’re not debating their validity.[/quote]

First, you assume you’re interpreting AND applying what you read correctly. And, do you realize you just wrote “theory” and “prove” in the same sentence? A theory cannot “prove” anything. A theory is a theory - “nothing more” as you say above. And, it is NOT proven that “nothing exists uncaused, save for that which caused with out being caused.”
[/quote]

I am not interpreting anything. Second, if I made a mistake then show me what it is. Don’t say I repeated or interpreted anything wrong unless you can show me. Otherwise what the point of saying it. Did I repeat anything wrong? If so I will correct it. Don’t tell me I may have made a mistake and then not prove it.

I am using arguments others use to show that even if said theory is correct, it still does not deny causation. So yes, I used theory and prove in the same sentence, because whether or not theory is correct, causation stands regardless…

All things are caused save for that which caused it, is a deductive logical necessity. If you can prove it wrong then do so. If you can find even one tiny thing that exists with out a cause, then tell me what it is.[/quote]

There is no evidence the universe was “caused”. None. So stop it. The best you can say is that there are promising theories that the “known universe” was caused by the big bang. And the “known universe” is still very “unknowable”. And big bang theory is still subject to dispute. We cannot say what existed prior to any such cause (or “bang”), if any. Your “deductive logical necessity” is trapped in your perception of the world, like the one dimensional creature on flatland, to use a TP thought experiment. You are trying to “perceive” and “think” and then apply theories that only have math behind them. No one “thought” or “perceived” such theories. They are math theories at the end of the day. You’re taking cold hard advanced math and theorems, dressing them up in your 3 dimensional world which includes a potentially faulty perception of time, and you’re using them to support your opinions on religion, which I repeat, the latter is a matter of faith. You’re better off arguing your scriptures.

Anyway, these threads ALWAYS end the same way. With frustration. Wars have been waged about this nonsense - don’t go fooling yourself that you’ll make any headway with the opposition.[/quote]

You’re job is easy, prove it wasn’t caused. I have laid down my arguments plenty in many different forms. Everything that exists exists for a reason unless you posit that what exists was uncaused, aka. random, or in other words something from nothing.

Stop it? Fuck off, you have no right to tell me what to do. I will do what I want,say what I want and will not rely on the fear of appealing to authority ← which in it self is a logical fallacy.

If you don’t like what I say, then prove it wrong or fuck off, period.

I’ll even make it easy here is a link read, weap…It’s full of points and counter points.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Shall I send for the Nobel folks for I found the one guy who can disprove the cosmological form? All I have seen you do is tell me I don’t have the smarts or the right to question anybody. That’s your problem not mine.
So genius, PROVE ME WRONG.[/quote]

And for the record, this was the beginning point of your personal jihad against me. And you say I’m friendly as a cancer cell? You don’t like to be challenged do you? What was the most offensive thing I said to that point? “Stop it”? LOL. That’s all it took to elicit the “fuck yous” and the rants? If I am indeed as “friendly as a cancer cell”, you are surely one sensitive and arrogant motherfucker.

But if we are to continue any discussion, we surely can just discard the labels and attacks (which I have done now for quite some time). If your perceived intellectual superiority cannot allow you to respond without an attack, I’m just not interested anymore. My rule is never to do something here that I wouldn’t do in person. If we rewind, and you and I are in a bar having this discussion, I am perfectly comfortable with saying aloud, “stop it” in a dismissive manner when I don’t agree with you. And if that indeed was the flash point for you to become outwardly disrespectful as you have, which I find hard to believe, then fine. But I don’t believe it. So be a man and have a discussion. Save the attacks for if and until you are able to utter them to me personally - at least then they will be faithful and honorable.

So, can we have this discussion or not?

743

[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]

At the risk of prolonging this bullshit, what the fuck was my “agenda”? I disagree with your conclusions and the manner in which you are arguing your point. I entered this discussion because the subject matter interests me - and that’s in good faith. And I’m not trying to tell you that you’re “wrong”. I pointed out the flaws in the CA that you doggedly hold so dear and protect like a snarling, snapping, drooling rabid dog.

744

And where does “time” figure into all this? We do not yet understand “time”. There are many theories on the nature of time. Is it your position that “causation” stands independent of time? If so, explain.

745

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Tirib is a faithful person. A blindly faithful person. Logic, reason, science, truth are all irrelevant in this world. >>>[/quote]Now there you go again. Reason, science, logic and truth are what they are and carry universal weight ONLY because the God I joyously serve has infused His creation with order reflecting His own mind and man in His own image. Ya’ll are stealing from my bank to finance your building.
Here again Pat ol buddy in a post TO YOU on the 22nd of last month as well: I wrote:[quote]The point isn’t whether the alleged law of non contradiction is true or not. The point is that it has no authentic power in the subjective vacuum of the mind of autonomous man. The law of non contradiction IS true if it is itself first intentionally subordinated to the mind of the God who is it’s author.[/quote]

746

In order to bring about fruitful discussion, especially among those who consider themselves to be disciples of Christ. I thought it best to show the person where one is coming from.

Tiribulus does this article accurately represent your position? Presuppositional apologetics - Wikipedia
If it is I would understand why you say “Ya’ll are stealing from my bank to finance your building.” to an unbeliever but not to a believer, especially if that believer holds true that the only reason he is rational is that God made man in his own image, even thought that image has been tainted by sin now. Which I understand to be the base of prepositionalism.

Pat I have been thinking quite a bit about a cosmological form of argument concerning ones ability to think rationally akin to axiological argument but involving rationality; or would that be a transcendental argument? What do you think about said arguments?

747

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< 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 >>>[/quote] And you would be correct again on both counts. I do not believe that there is even one particle of reality on ANY level that relinquishes it’s secrets in independence of He who upholds all things by the Word of His power. He is THE final definer and definition of the comprehensive catalog of all existence. From the movement of subatomic matter to the purpose and destiny of every individual person. To believe otherwise is to ascribe external contingency to the source of all and thereby arrogantly bring Him down to our level and actually subordinate Him to us. In that same intellectual act any hope of consistency is broken. For what is the final difference between contingent man or a contingent god? It’s contingency nonetheless. What we need is an utterly noncontingent definition for all ontological unity and plurality or we get a definition for nothing at all. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote: 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 >>>[/quote]Ya raised my eyebrows with this one. =] You are nuzzling yourself perilously close to the truth here dude. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:a literal mission impossible. >>>[/quote] The mission was made, not possible, for that would introduce contingency, but certain, for all who by faith surrender themselves to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit and all according to His eternal decree. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< - a literal mission impossible. We can see, but what we see is an illusion of our experience and not truth, in other words. >>>[/quote]What we see is as through the defective glass of sin. We can make out the general shapes, more or less warped and distorted depending on which part we’re looking through and at, but never with ultimately defining clarity. Unilluminated sinful men hijack God’s laws of created order and in the process do discover much FORMAL truth, but having launched their inquiries from and for themselves they never ever do and never ever will arrive at a non-contradictory defining framework in which to ultimately interpret ANY fact whatsoever.

Either the TRIUNE God defines everything or sinful man defines nothing. Both by faith.

748

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:<<< If it is I would understand why you say “Ya’ll are stealing from my bank to finance your building.” to an unbeliever but not to a believer, especially if that believer holds true that the only reason he is rational is that God made man in his own image, even thought that image has been tainted by sin now. Which I understand to be the base of prepositionalism. >>>[/quote]Clark and Van Til were world’s apart epistemologically. How they both wound up on a page about presuppositionalism is beyond me, but Clark was very strong in his defense of the reformation and the doctrines of Grace. The pagan Greeks, Thomas Aquinas and Arminian evangelicals all hold what amounts to the same epistomology. Ranging in consistency from the Greeks to the Arminians with the Greeks being most consistent with the autonomous theory of knowledge and Arminians the least thank the Lord, but autonomous still. Non presuppostional Calvinists (Like Gordon Clark) are possibly the most mystifyingly inconsistent critters in all the universe.

Try this Van Tillian object lesson Joab. (and anybody else) Jake already has this. No point in starting it though if you don’t finish it. 24 page PDF file. Save it for later if you want to. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/forum1/host/A_Defense_of_Reformed(biblical)Presuppositional_Apologetics_by_Cornelius_VanTil.pdf

749

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< 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 >>>[/quote] And you would be correct again on both counts. I do not believe that there is even one particle of reality on ANY level that relinquishes it’s secrets in independence of He who upholds all things by the Word of His power. He is THE final definer and definition of the comprehensive catalog of all existence. From the movement of subatomic matter to the purpose and destiny of every individual person. To believe otherwise is to ascribe external contingency to the source of all and thereby arrogantly bring Him down to our level and actually subordinate Him to us. In that same intellectual act any hope of consistency is broken. For what is the final difference between contingent man or a contingent god? It’s contingency nonetheless. What we need is an utterly noncontingent definition for all ontological unity and plurality or we get a definition for nothing at all. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote: 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 >>>[/quote]Ya raised my eyebrows with this one. =] You are nuzzling yourself perilously close to the truth here dude. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:a literal mission impossible. >>>[/quote] The mission was made, not possible, for that would introduce contingency, but certain, for all who by faith surrender themselves to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit and all according to His eternal decree. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< - a literal mission impossible. We can see, but what we see is an illusion of our experience and not truth, in other words. >>>[/quote]What we see is as through the defective glass of sin. We can make out the general shapes, more or less warped and distorted depending on which part we’re looking through and at, but never with ultimately defining clarity. Unilluminated sinful men hijack God’s laws of created order and in the process do discover much FORMAL truth, but having launched their inquiries from and for themselves they never ever do and never ever will arrive at a non-contradictory defining framework in which to ultimately interpret ANY fact whatsoever.

Either the TRIUNE God defines everything or sinful man defines nothing. Both by faith.
[/quote]

Well, we have found some common ground but for very different reasons. It is common ground nonetheless. I like my 2 dimensional character analogy even though Pat seems to hate it. I think it’s a very valuable thought experiment. The 2 dimensional character will never experience an additional dimension. He may theorize about it, and even create some fancy math to describe it, but he will never observe or experience it, and therefore never prove it. If Pat and I were 2d characters, we could very well be having the same debate about a 3rd dimension as the debate we are having here about causation. I would be arguing for the possibility of a 3rd, unseen dimension, and Pat would reply, “prove it”. Instead, I say there may be something, or nothing, at work and that causation is the same illusion it is as the 2 dimensions is to our 2d character.

I see mankind in a similar predicament - trapped in our 3 dimensional experience, with an alleged 4th (time) that we do not yet even understand, along with an inkling that there is even more to the puzzle, but that we cannot observe, measure (QM being one potential example of the limitations of our ability to measure that beyond our experience) or experience. I didn’t make up the 2d character flat land thought experiment and it’s a valid thought experiment and I think it’s instructive.

Where you see man’s inability to know the mind of the divine as the limiting factor, I see man’s trap inside his experience, his perception, his “time”. That brilliant men have pondered and labored with these issues is further evidence that ultimately, the answers may forever lie beyond our grasp. and that’s discouraging. We may in fact discover the “god particle” for instance, but will we ever “see” a theoretical string? Not likely. And not in this lifetime. We don’t even have gravity figured out, with the graviton a mere theoretical particle.

Good stuff that doesn’t always have to end in an argument.

750

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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? [/quote]

Yes, it is. Name one thing that isn’t.

751

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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. [/quote]

“I don’t presume to know anything about what you think.” <-Bullshit, when you tell me I cannot know something and to stop it, you are presuming to know what I think and why I think it.

“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).” ← The validity of the argument has been sufficiently established. It is either right or wrong, there is know middle road. It’s logical necessity not empirically determined scientific fact. Science just measures things, philosophy determines what the results mean. If you are going to argue that it’s isn’t true, then prove it. If you argue that it is bound by experience and perception and then use and example of a theory that doesn’t exist in perception or experience, then you just simply shoot yourself in the foot.

How can you be bound by experience on a subject that can neither be sensed nor have a historical precedent for? That’s right you cannot. Experience is only a starting point, if you don’t go beyond, you never progress.

I like quantum mechanics just fine, and no theory or observation has debunked causality at all. If anything it did manage to show empirically that causation can exist out side of time.

752

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Tirib is a faithful person. A blindly faithful person. Logic, reason, science, truth are all irrelevant in this world. >>>[/quote]Now there you go again. Reason, science, logic and truth are what they are and carry universal weight ONLY because the God I joyously serve has infused His creation with order reflecting His own mind and man in His own image. Ya’ll are stealing from my bank to finance your building.
Here again Pat ol buddy in a post TO YOU on the 22nd of last month as well: I wrote:[quote]The point isn’t whether the alleged law of non contradiction is true or not. The point is that it has no authentic power in the subjective vacuum of the mind of autonomous man. The law of non contradiction IS true if it is itself first intentionally subordinated to the mind of the God who is it’s author.[/quote]
[/quote]

“The law of non contradiction IS true if it is itself first intentionally subordinated to the mind of the God who is it’s author.”

How do you know it’s true?
How do you know it can be subordinated to the ‘mind of God’?
How do you know God is it’s author?

753

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And where does “time” figure into all this? We do not yet understand “time”. There are many theories on the nature of time. Is it your position that “causation” stands independent of time? If so, explain.[/quote]

Causation can occur in or out of time, it is not bound by it. Time is actually a function of movement and change of physical objects. If nothing moves, there is no time, it everything moves at the speed of light, there is no time. Something can be dependent with out it occurring in temporal order.

All something has to do is exist and the principle of sufficient reason must apply or be proven why it does not. Physical objects do not apply for reasonless or random existence.

754

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[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?
[/quote]

How long were you on the floor? At least you were not in the toilet. I don’t know, did you?

755

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Again, you can take exception to the way I have argued my position. Fine. But you have proven nothing and we already settled that the CA is not proven scientific fact. And although you have taken great pains to attack me, you have done very little in the way of deconstructing those examples that you claim prove me wrong. [/quote]

The only thing I have seen you argue is that ‘I can’t or don’t know’. I have counter argued in great detail every example you have given me.

You made the claim that perception rules over causality, prove it cannot happen outside of perception. That’s what you have to do.

Repeating the same sentence with out proof is not really arguing a position.

756

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

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?
[/quote]

Is existence of anything, fact or fiction?

757

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Nobody here is claim to be a TP. Their theories are handy for supporting causal relationship. We’re not trying to do what they do. Further, the discussion is about God. God is the creator. If you consider him something different we are not talking about the same thing. I use their damn good speculative theories to prove that nothing exists uncaused, save for that which caused with out being caused. Nothing more. I am not sure why think that the postulations by people with a lot of letters behind their names is off limits? We can’t talk about and use it? Why? Is it sacred in some way? We can only butcher it if we regurgitate the information incorrectly. If we have not, then we have not done anybody any injustice. We’re not debating their validity.[/quote]

First, you assume you’re interpreting AND applying what you read correctly. And, do you realize you just wrote “theory” and “prove” in the same sentence? A theory cannot “prove” anything. A theory is a theory - “nothing more” as you say above. And, it is NOT proven that “nothing exists uncaused, save for that which caused with out being caused.”
[/quote]

I am not interpreting anything. Second, if I made a mistake then show me what it is. Don’t say I repeated or interpreted anything wrong unless you can show me. Otherwise what the point of saying it. Did I repeat anything wrong? If so I will correct it. Don’t tell me I may have made a mistake and then not prove it.

I am using arguments others use to show that even if said theory is correct, it still does not deny causation. So yes, I used theory and prove in the same sentence, because whether or not theory is correct, causation stands regardless…

All things are caused save for that which caused it, is a deductive logical necessity. If you can prove it wrong then do so. If you can find even one tiny thing that exists with out a cause, then tell me what it is.[/quote]

There is no evidence the universe was “caused”. None. So stop it. The best you can say is that there are promising theories that the “known universe” was caused by the big bang. And the “known universe” is still very “unknowable”. And big bang theory is still subject to dispute. We cannot say what existed prior to any such cause (or “bang”), if any. Your “deductive logical necessity” is trapped in your perception of the world, like the one dimensional creature on flatland, to use a TP thought experiment. You are trying to “perceive” and “think” and then apply theories that only have math behind them. No one “thought” or “perceived” such theories. They are math theories at the end of the day. You’re taking cold hard advanced math and theorems, dressing them up in your 3 dimensional world which includes a potentially faulty perception of time, and you’re using them to support your opinions on religion, which I repeat, the latter is a matter of faith. You’re better off arguing your scriptures.

Anyway, these threads ALWAYS end the same way. With frustration. Wars have been waged about this nonsense - don’t go fooling yourself that you’ll make any headway with the opposition.[/quote]

You’re job is easy, prove it wasn’t caused. I have laid down my arguments plenty in many different forms. Everything that exists exists for a reason unless you posit that what exists was uncaused, aka. random, or in other words something from nothing.

Stop it? Fuck off, you have no right to tell me what to do. I will do what I want,say what I want and will not rely on the fear of appealing to authority ← which in it self is a logical fallacy.

If you don’t like what I say, then prove it wrong or fuck off, period.

I’ll even make it easy here is a link read, weap…It’s full of points and counter points.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Shall I send for the Nobel folks for I found the one guy who can disprove the cosmological form? All I have seen you do is tell me I don’t have the smarts or the right to question anybody. That’s your problem not mine.
So genius, PROVE ME WRONG.[/quote]

And for the record, this was the beginning point of your personal jihad against me. And you say I’m friendly as a cancer cell? You don’t like to be challenged do you? What was the most offensive thing I said to that point? “Stop it”? LOL. That’s all it took to elicit the “fuck yous” and the rants? If I am indeed as “friendly as a cancer cell”, you are surely one sensitive and arrogant motherfucker.

But if we are to continue any discussion, we surely can just discard the labels and attacks (which I have done now for quite some time). If your perceived intellectual superiority cannot allow you to respond without an attack, I’m just not interested anymore. My rule is never to do something here that I wouldn’t do in person. If we rewind, and you and I are in a bar having this discussion, I am perfectly comfortable with saying aloud, “stop it” in a dismissive manner when I don’t agree with you. And if that indeed was the flash point for you to become outwardly disrespectful as you have, which I find hard to believe, then fine. But I don’t believe it. So be a man and have a discussion. Save the attacks for if and until you are able to utter them to me personally - at least then they will be faithful and honorable.

So, can we have this discussion or not? [/quote]

If you come at me, late in a discussion from on high, telling me what I can and cannot argue and what I should and should not do, you’re going to get a ‘Fuck you’, period.

If you want to have a civil discourse then state your position clearly and support it and you will have a counter argument civilly. Most people, atheist or christian I have had civil and productive discussions.

I like to be challenged, but not ordered nor condemned unjustly to hell, that pisses me off.

758

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
In order to bring about fruitful discussion, especially among those who consider themselves to be disciples of Christ. I thought it best to show the person where one is coming from.

Tiribulus does this article accurately represent your position? Presuppositional apologetics - Wikipedia
If it is I would understand why you say “Ya’ll are stealing from my bank to finance your building.” to an unbeliever but not to a believer, especially if that believer holds true that the only reason he is rational is that God made man in his own image, even thought that image has been tainted by sin now. Which I understand to be the base of prepositionalism.

Pat I have been thinking quite a bit about a cosmological form of argument concerning ones ability to think rationally akin to axiological argument but involving rationality; or would that be a transcendental argument? What do you think about said arguments?[/quote]

Actually both are subsets of Cosmology. I like those a lot because they are not muttered by physical presence or the time that tends to hold it. They are metaphysical entities. Which is a more useful form provided that the person you discuss it with, understands metaphysics and what metaphysical entities are.

The problem is that people have trouble agreeing on moral laws and what they actually are. For instance, most would agree that even if socially accepted, that child rape is wrong. Then you delve into why and how, then where did this notion come from. Actually it all boils down to good and evil, why is good, good and evil, bad. Then where did these tenets come from.
It is true that moral laws are most defiantly contingent, are eternal (exist out side of time) and is not bound by perception even if they (as far as we know) only apply to people.

759

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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. [/quote]

“I don’t presume to know anything about what you think.” <-Bullshit, when you tell me I cannot know something and to stop it, you are presuming to know what I think and why I think it.

“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).” ← The validity of the argument has been sufficiently established. It is either right or wrong, there is know middle road. It’s logical necessity not empirically determined scientific fact. Science just measures things, philosophy determines what the results mean. If you are going to argue that it’s isn’t true, then prove it. If you argue that it is bound by experience and perception and then use and example of a theory that doesn’t exist in perception or experience, then you just simply shoot yourself in the foot.

How can you be bound by experience on a subject that can neither be sensed nor have a historical precedent for? That’s right you cannot. Experience is only a starting point, if you don’t go beyond, you never progress.

I like quantum mechanics just fine, and no theory or observation has debunked causality at all. If anything it did manage to show empirically that causation can exist out side of time.

[/quote]

Like I said, apparently you are pretty sensitive.

The CA is perfectly valid. But it does not “prove” anything, and you know that. I agree it has to be right or wrong. I’ve stated all along just that; that it could be wrong. My observation and opinion is not incorrect. I didn’t need to shop lift the thoughts of a bunch of smart people to figure that out either - it was original thought.

The CA is not a “logical necessity”. It starts with an unknown. It starts with a perception of experience - that causation is the agent of what we experience and observe. That’s where it starts.

Nice comprehension fail. I used a theory clearly outside of our experience to posit that such realities outside our experience may in fact exist - that there are laws of the universe beyond our perception and experience. It’s a way of illustrating to you that although we may experience and observe “causation”, it is not impossible that causation is an illusion of a greater truth. But you knew that, I don’t believe for one minute you didn’t know what I was getting at, that you are more concerned with picking at words and people rather than having a sincere discussion.

Radioactive decay and QM have both cast questions upon causality. And it’s funny you mention time, an alleged “4th dimension” that we do not fully understand. So, you’re injecting an unknown (time) into the discussion about causation.

760

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And where does “time” figure into all this? We do not yet understand “time”. There are many theories on the nature of time. Is it your position that “causation” stands independent of time? If so, explain.[/quote]

Causation can occur in or out of time, it is not bound by it. Time is actually a function of movement and change of physical objects. If nothing moves, there is no time, it everything moves at the speed of light, there is no time. Something can be dependent with out it occurring in temporal order.

All something has to do is exist and the principle of sufficient reason must apply or be proven why it does not. Physical objects do not apply for reasonless or random existence.[/quote]

Bohm has said that causality IS an empirical thing, that causality is a principal of different kinds of experience and which has never been contradicted in any observation or experiment. But it IS empirical. Give me an example of causality not experienced or observed by man.

And, exactly when have we witnessed causality “occur…out of time” as you have implied with your ealier comments about QM.

“Everything” does not move at the speed of light so I’m not sure where you’re going with this. If you’re moving at the speed of light, time is still occurring, you just experience it differently.
I do agree with you that time, as we currently understand it, is movement. So what of possible states of the universe where there could be nearly no movement? A virtual static universe? Time would virtually stand still.

If there was in fact a big bang, and nothing at all existed beyond or prior to the theoretical singularity (I’m not sure how you can wrap your mind around that - what existed outside the singularity?), then time commenced with the big bang.

I know where the CA goes for you. If God is the first mover, the uncaused caused, prove to me there can be an “uncaused cause”. Who created God?

By the way, as you know, the laws of the universe that we CAN observe and experience break down the closer you get to the theoretical big bang. Might make a reasonable person wonder whether what we observe and experience is in fact reality. Clearly, our current laws do not adequately explain the theoretical big bang, they simply break down.

And now we come to the part where I think we disagree so much. You throw about these terms and speak in a way that one could easily conclude you are just stating facts, beginning with the CA itself. You are not stating facts. You have done this very thing again when you tossed out PSR. May I quote from your favorite source? I think I will:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

"Several modern philosophers attempted to provide a proof for the PSR, though so far these attempts have been mostly unsuccessful. Another important problem related to the PSR is the possibility of self-explanatory facts and self-caused entities; particularly, one may wonder how these are distinguished from unexplainable, brute facts and uncaused entities. One may also wonder whether the PSR allows for primitive concepts that cannot be further explained. "

I think that shall serve to make my point. Why can’t you couch your argument in terms of, “if we accept PSR, then…”. Clearly it’s implied YOU accept PSR, but you handle it like a fact when you post, along with the CA - and it’s that style that I take exception to (leading to my “stop it” comment which inflamed your feelings so much). You did it again when commenting upon time; “time is…” instead of “we believe…” or, “our current theory of time…”.

Now, back to “time”. Time is inextricably tied to our experience and observation of things. We do not yet understand it. We have theories about time. Not facts. But give me an example of causality occurring outside of time.