Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
761

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Wrong. I’ve pretty much stated that “we”, humanity, does not know. I have clarified above, that I take exception to the way you toss these concepts about as facts when they are theories.

I made that claim that causality is based on perception. And I’ll ask you again, if you disagree, give me an example of a proven causal event that was not observed. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

762

[quote]pat wrote:

[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?[/quote]

If the 2d character in flatland starts with the existence of his circle, which in fact we in 3d land know to be a sphere, is 2d character’s perception of his existence “fact or fiction”? I submit it’s a fiction, based on his limited experience - an illusion if you will. And since there are a number of promising theories about the nature of our universe that WE DO NOT EXPERIENCE, that are only postulated by math (because we cannot directly observe or experience them) then I submit that much of our existence may be an illusion, a fiction if you will.

763

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

You’re clearly angry. And “Stop it” got you there? I think you’re a might sensitive.

764

[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]

PSR is disputed.

If causation is not something observed by man, then explain how you define causation. Better put, how does “causation” as a physical law exist outside of our experience?

765

[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]

I also think we firmly established that I did not “start with a personal attack”. I started with a dismissive “stop it”. What you followed with was personal attack built upon personal attack. If “stop it” pissed you have that much, you have the problem, not me.

766

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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?[/quote]

If the 2d character in flatland starts with the existence of his circle, which in fact we in 3d land know to be a sphere, is 2d character’s perception of his existence “fact or fiction”? I submit it’s a fiction, based on his limited experience - an illusion if you will. And since there are a number of promising theories about the nature of our universe that WE DO NOT EXPERIENCE, that are only postulated by math (because we cannot directly observe or experience them) then I submit that much of our existence may be an illusion, a fiction if you will.[/quote]

Not questioning, what exists, just asking if you think anything exists.

767

[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]

PSR is disputed.

If causation is not something observed by man, then explain how you define causation. Better put, how does “causation” as a physical law exist outside of our experience? [/quote]

Causation isn’t a physical law. Physical laws are themselves contingent and hence, caused.

You can only get some idea of causal relationships by empirical observation, we cannot know if what we observe as a causal relationship is true. That’s why experiments have to be repeated, to establish correlation. Science is one way to study causal relations, but you can only correlate them at best. Second component of science is statistics, which is to establish that ‘If A, then likely B’. The Humian contingent comes in to play with science.

768

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Wrong. I’ve pretty much stated that “we”, humanity, does not know. I have clarified above, that I take exception to the way you toss these concepts about as facts when they are theories.

I made that claim that causality is based on perception. And I’ll ask you again, if you disagree, give me an example of a proven causal event that was not observed. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

[/quote]

How many versions do you really need? If something exists physical or non-physical it exists for a reason. It exists because of something else. Example: Morality exists because if the dichotomy of good and evil.
Elementary particles exist because the make up everything else physical, they are made up of energy, frequency, which move. Movement exists because, something acted on something else to make it possible. Energy is made of a something that moves or can move. It came to existence some how.
Evrything physical rolls up the the metaphysical, which rolls up in to one. You can start with an observation, you cannot end up with something observable. Just follow the regress.

You don’t have to know everything to for it to be true. All something has to do is exist, if it exists it’s either contingent or non-contingent.

769

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

You’re clearly angry. And “Stop it” got you there? I think you’re a might sensitive. [/quote]

Not angry, just don’t like people who don’t know what I am talking about to tell me I don’t know what I am talking about. Particularly when I was not the one using scientific theories to prove or disprove cosmology, I was asserting why it does not matter.

Further, you consistently ask me to prove my point while never even bothering to prove yours.

All you have to do is prove one thing sits out side the causal chain, in this universe or not, in what we can understand or not. One thing.

770

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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.
[/quote]
You want scientific explanations? Or math, or theory or laws? All are contingent. Once passed a certain point in any regress no observation is possible.

EPR Paradox. It was actually observed around 1980, I believed.

I didn’t say everything moves at the speed of light, I said “if” everything moved at the spped of light in the known universe.

Time is a function of relative movement. Two things moving relative to each other, where one is moving at a different rate or direction than the other.

It seems reasonable that “time” started with the big bang, it’s possible to have existed before. It’s just unknown what was there, be it a singularity, or a pool of matter and anti matter. Cannot know, but it must have been acted on whether from a chain of events or a direct intervention.

An Uncaused-cause cannot, by definition be caused. There for ‘It’ could not be created. The necessary being must be true for all else to exist. An infinite regress is fallacious and circular. Says nothing about infinity, just you cannot regress infinitely. All we can deductively know about the uncaused-causer, is that it must be uncaused (sit out side the causal chain) and also cause. We cannot by deduction know anymore than that.
That does not say whether or not ‘it’ started a chain of events or if ‘it’ is actively involved, just that it must exist uncaused, and cause. That’s all it says.

Yes, they end up dividing by zero.

If the sufficient reason seems inapplicable, then reason from contingency can be used, it’s all still causality… It is disputed and will always be so. But it is not proven wrong. Nobody has ever been able to even remotely show a self-caused or self explanatory fact exists at all. They claim it’s only possible, but cannot explain how or what violates it.

771

“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]pat wrote:<<< How do you know it’s true?[/quote]Because it is used all over the Word of God and according to Paul, by unavoidable implication, it reflects the perfect order of the mind of God.

[quote]How do you know it can be subordinated to the ‘mind of God’? [/quote]It is, as are ALL things, already subordinated to the mind of God. Indeed it is an aspect of God’s signature upon His work. Fallen sinful man’s failure to recognize and treat it as such is at once the cause of his philosophical failures and a symptom of his fallen sinfulness.

[quote]pat wrote:How do you know God is it’s author? [/quote] Genesis 5:1b-2 [quote]When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. [/quote]Romans 1:18-23 again. [quote]18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.[/quote]Lemme ask you Pat. Do you deny that God is the author of the laws of logic. I hope all the professing Christians are paying attention.

772

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
“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]pat wrote:<<< How do you know it’s true?[/quote]Because it is used all over the Word of God and according to Paul, by unavoidable implication, it reflects the perfect order of the mind of God.

[quote]How do you know it can be subordinated to the ‘mind of God’? [/quote]It is, as are ALL things, already subordinated to the mind of God. Indeed it is an aspect of God’s signature upon His work. Fallen sinful man’s failure to recognize and treat it as such is at once the cause of his philosophical failures and a symptom of his fallen sinfulness.

[quote]pat wrote:How do you know God is it’s author? [/quote] Genesis 5:1b-2 [quote]When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. [/quote]Romans 1:18-23 again. [quote]18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.[/quote]Lemme ask you Pat. Do you deny that God is the author of the laws of logic. I hope all the professing Christians are paying attention.
[/quote]

I believe that God is the author of all that exists…

You are making statements of faith. Nothing wrong with that, but they cannot also be passed off as deductive truths simply based on scripture.

Divine order may be in fact God’s signature, but you don’t know it by studying Paul, you know it by studying the creation itself; seemingly as Paul himself must have, for he mentions it beyond just divine revelation.

773

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I believe that God is the author of all that exists… >>>[/quote]Oh no you don’t.[quote]pat wrote:You are making statements of faith. Nothing wrong with that, but they cannot also be passed off as deductive truths simply based on scripture. >>>[/quote]Pat my good man I have made a career here out of declaring the utter uselessness of deduction, yea even logic itself operating in the sinful vacuum of the fallen sinful autonomous intellect of finite created man in the pursuit of answers to ultimate questions. Do you realize how often you do this? You chide me for something I have already screamed over and over that I do not believe. [quote]pat wrote:<<< Divine order may be in fact God’s signature, >>>[/quote]Not may be. Absolutely is. [quote]pat wrote:<<< but you don’t know it by studying Paul, you know it by studying the creation itself; seemingly as Paul himself must have, for he mentions it beyond just divine revelation. [/quote]You don’t know it primarily by studying at all. You know it by being born again into new life in Christ being transformed receiving His mind and having old things pass away and all things become new. Paul says EVERYBODY sees, even unbelievers dead in their sin, but they “hold under” (study the Greek there) that truth in unrighteousness because they hate God and will believe absolutely anything except that they are guilty and accountable to Him. General revelation in nature reveals enough of God to damn, but not enough to save. Oh yes it does.

774

@ TheBodyGuard
I’m not ignoring you. I just don’t have a lot of time today

775

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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?[/quote]

If the 2d character in flatland starts with the existence of his circle, which in fact we in 3d land know to be a sphere, is 2d character’s perception of his existence “fact or fiction”? I submit it’s a fiction, based on his limited experience - an illusion if you will. And since there are a number of promising theories about the nature of our universe that WE DO NOT EXPERIENCE, that are only postulated by math (because we cannot directly observe or experience them) then I submit that much of our existence may be an illusion, a fiction if you will.[/quote]

Not questioning, what exists, just asking if you think anything exists.[/quote]

Yes, “anything” exists, but it’s how you characterize what exists that may be a product of our limited experience or perception.

776

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

PSR is disputed.

If causation is not something observed by man, then explain how you define causation. Better put, how does “causation” as a physical law exist outside of our experience? [/quote]

Causation isn’t a physical law. Physical laws are themselves contingent and hence, caused.

You can only get some idea of causal relationships by empirical observation, we cannot know if what we observe as a causal relationship is true. That’s why experiments have to be repeated, to establish correlation. Science is one way to study causal relations, but you can only correlate them at best. Second component of science is statistics, which is to establish that ‘If A, then likely B’. The Humian contingent comes in to play with science.[/quote]

Fine. So again, tell me how causation exists outside of our experience and observation.

777

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Wrong. I’ve pretty much stated that “we”, humanity, does not know. I have clarified above, that I take exception to the way you toss these concepts about as facts when they are theories.

I made that claim that causality is based on perception. And I’ll ask you again, if you disagree, give me an example of a proven causal event that was not observed. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

[/quote]

How many versions do you really need? If something exists physical or non-physical it exists for a reason. It exists because of something else. Example: Morality exists because if the dichotomy of good and evil.
Elementary particles exist because the make up everything else physical, they are made up of energy, frequency, which move. Movement exists because, something acted on something else to make it possible. Energy is made of a something that moves or can move. It came to existence some how.
Evrything physical rolls up the the metaphysical, which rolls up in to one. You can start with an observation, you cannot end up with something observable. Just follow the regress.

You don’t have to know everything to for it to be true. All something has to do is exist, if it exists it’s either contingent or non-contingent. [/quote]

Are you back to the disputed PSR?

How about this; if God exists, he exists for a reason? What is the reason and who created God?

778

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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.[/quote]

You’re clearly angry. And “Stop it” got you there? I think you’re a might sensitive. [/quote]

Not angry, just don’t like people who don’t know what I am talking about to tell me I don’t know what I am talking about. Particularly when I was not the one using scientific theories to prove or disprove cosmology, I was asserting why it does not matter.

Further, you consistently ask me to prove my point while never even bothering to prove yours.

All you have to do is prove one thing sits out side the causal chain, in this universe or not, in what we can understand or not. One thing. [/quote]

But you know this has not been done. And you also know that your CA is not fact. Pretty simple isn’t it? Or do you get off on having circular arguments for the sole purpose of playing word games and attacking someone? And you haven’t “proven” anything; you gave references to disputed theories and philosophical arguments.

779

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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.
[/quote]
You want scientific explanations? Or math, or theory or laws? All are contingent. Once passed a certain point in any regress no observation is possible.

EPR Paradox. It was actually observed around 1980, I believed.

I didn’t say everything moves at the speed of light, I said “if” everything moved at the spped of light in the known universe.

Time is a function of relative movement. Two things moving relative to each other, where one is moving at a different rate or direction than the other.

It seems reasonable that “time” started with the big bang, it’s possible to have existed before. It’s just unknown what was there, be it a singularity, or a pool of matter and anti matter. Cannot know, but it must have been acted on whether from a chain of events or a direct intervention.

An Uncaused-cause cannot, by definition be caused. There for ‘It’ could not be created. The necessary being must be true for all else to exist. An infinite regress is fallacious and circular. Says nothing about infinity, just you cannot regress infinitely. All we can deductively know about the uncaused-causer, is that it must be uncaused (sit out side the causal chain) and also cause. We cannot by deduction know anymore than that.
That does not say whether or not ‘it’ started a chain of events or if ‘it’ is actively involved, just that it must exist uncaused, and cause. That’s all it says.

Yes, they end up dividing by zero.

If the sufficient reason seems inapplicable, then reason from contingency can be used, it’s all still causality… It is disputed and will always be so. But it is not proven wrong. Nobody has ever been able to even remotely show a self-caused or self explanatory fact exists at all. They claim it’s only possible, but cannot explain how or what violates it.

[/quote]

I will return to this when I’m fresh. It’s late.

780

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I believe that God is the author of all that exists… >>>[/quote]Oh no you don’t.[quote]pat wrote:You are making statements of faith. Nothing wrong with that, but they cannot also be passed off as deductive truths simply based on scripture. >>>[/quote]Pat my good man I have made a career here out of declaring the utter uselessness of deduction, yea even logic itself operating in the sinful vacuum of the fallen sinful autonomous intellect of finite created man in the pursuit of answers to ultimate questions. Do you realize how often you do this? You chide me for something I have already screamed over and over that I do not believe. [quote]pat wrote:<<< Divine order may be in fact God’s signature, >>>[/quote]Not may be. Absolutely is. [quote]pat wrote:<<< but you don’t know it by studying Paul, you know it by studying the creation itself; seemingly as Paul himself must have, for he mentions it beyond just divine revelation. [/quote]You don’t know it primarily by studying at all. You know it by being born again into new life in Christ being transformed receiving His mind and having old things pass away and all things become new. Paul says EVERYBODY sees, even unbelievers dead in their sin, but they “hold under” (study the Greek there) that truth in unrighteousness because they hate God and will believe absolutely anything except that they are guilty and accountable to Him. General revelation in nature reveals enough of God to damn, but not enough to save. Oh yes it does.
[/quote]

Oh? Now you claim I don’t believe in God? By whose authority have you made this determination?

“May be” is what is known in the Greek as a hina clause.

So all I have to do is go through a ritual declaring Jesus as my Lord and Savior and all the sudden I will know all there is to know about creation and all the nuances and science behind it? Seeing how you have demonstrated no knowledge of natural order or any thing of the sort, you either A) have not received Jesus as your Lord and Savior or B) doing so isn’t the way to all knowledge. You actually have to study things to know about them. God reveals himself through his creation to.

God saves the dumb, uneducated and ignorant as well as the educated and well read. Academic prowess isn’t salvationary.

I don’t see your point really. I am predestined according to you, therefore I have no power or control over what I do. I cannot be saved by any action or faith for I was damned before I even took my first breath, according to you. Since that is what you believe, why do you bother thumping a bible on my head, you cannot save the damned and you cannot damned the saved no matter what. So says TULIP, so what is your point? Why associate yourself with the damned…

Oh I do have a quesion that you won’t answer, what happens if you were selected to be saved, but your wife and kids were selected to be damned?
Honest question, not likely you will answer, but honest question.