Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
801

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god. >>>[/quote]Very VERY VERY GOOD!!! That’s exactly right. The God I worship is wholly, utterly and comprehensively UN-contingent. He exists, thinks, rules, reigns and decrees based upon absolutely nothing, NAH THEENG, save for His own infinitely perfect and mighty will. You have hit the nail exactly on the head here bub. Of course in your very next post you’ll completely betray the truth you have by the remaining image of God and His common grace here declared. You can’t help it. You have the form, but not the substance. Just like everybody else.

BodyGuard please observe. The God in whose hand is the whole of creation has provided a living object lesson whereby even the scorn of sinners is made to praise His glorious name. He’ll have no idea what I’m talking about, but I have a feeling that you and Jake might.
[/quote]

Why do I feel like a puppy that was just tossed a scooby snack?

If everything I said is exactly right, then matter and energy are completely noncontingent. I’m sure you didn’t mean to admit that, so please correct it for the record if that’s the case.

The point of recognizing that matter and energy can’t be created is that it obviates the need for a creator. It turns your god into a fabrication of your mind and heart, based on a deep psychological need to find comfort and direction in a universe that is frightening to many.

Of course, there could still be a god despite all of that. It just doesn’t seem likely, and it certainly isn’t necessary.

802

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god. >>>[/quote]Very VERY VERY GOOD!!! That’s exactly right. The God I worship is wholly, utterly and comprehensively UN-contingent. He exists, thinks, rules, reigns and decrees based upon absolutely nothing, NAH THEENG, save for His own infinitely perfect and mighty will. You have hit the nail exactly on the head here bub. Of course in your very next post you’ll completely betray the truth you have by the remaining image of God and His common grace here declared. You can’t help it. You have the form, but not the substance. Just like everybody else.

BodyGuard please observe. The God in whose hand is the whole of creation has provided a living object lesson whereby even the scorn of sinners is made to praise His glorious name. He’ll have no idea what I’m talking about, but I have a feeling that you and Jake might.
[/quote]

Why do I feel like a puppy that was just tossed a scooby snack?

If everything I said is exactly right, then matter and energy are completely noncontingent. I’m sure you didn’t mean to admit that, so please correct it for the record if that’s the case.

The point of recognizing that matter and energy can’t be created is that it obviates the need for a creator. It turns your god into a fabrication of your mind and heart, based on a deep psychological need to find comfort and direction in a universe that is frightening to many.

Of course, there could still be a god despite all of that. It just doesn’t seem likely, and it certainly isn’t necessary.[/quote]LOL!!! I didn’t meant it exactly like that man, but there was a hint of sanctified sarcasm in there. My point is, as it’s always been, that both your universe and Pat’s God are equally contingent. Or if equally non contingent then Aristotle’s “analogy of being” is correct and the God of scripture cannot exist by definition as he would be equal with his creation. The creature/creator distinction is utterly foundational in the bible. The God revealed there is contingent upon NOTHING external to Himself and is hence, even on a philosophical level, the only explanation for anything whatsoever. Aquinas did gravely err in his intellectual whoredom with Athens.

The point of recognizing that WE cannot create matter or energy or conceive of it’s emergence from nothing is to lead us directly into surrender to the one being who can and does. Read Romans 1 again.

803

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god. >>>[/quote]Very VERY VERY GOOD!!! That’s exactly right. The God I worship is wholly, utterly and comprehensively UN-contingent. He exists, thinks, rules, reigns and decrees based upon absolutely nothing, NAH THEENG, save for His own infinitely perfect and mighty will. You have hit the nail exactly on the head here bub. Of course in your very next post you’ll completely betray the truth you have by the remaining image of God and His common grace here declared. You can’t help it. You have the form, but not the substance. Just like everybody else.

BodyGuard please observe. The God in whose hand is the whole of creation has provided a living object lesson whereby even the scorn of sinners is made to praise His glorious name. He’ll have no idea what I’m talking about, but I have a feeling that you and Jake might.
[/quote]

Why do I feel like a puppy that was just tossed a scooby snack?

If everything I said is exactly right, then matter and energy are completely noncontingent. I’m sure you didn’t mean to admit that, so please correct it for the record if that’s the case.

The point of recognizing that matter and energy can’t be created is that it obviates the need for a creator. It turns your god into a fabrication of your mind and heart, based on a deep psychological need to find comfort and direction in a universe that is frightening to many.

Of course, there could still be a god despite all of that. It just doesn’t seem likely, and it certainly isn’t necessary.[/quote]

The thing is, lets say matter and energy have always existed. The first law of thermodyn. (HA, sounds like cyberdyne. Look out for Ahhhnold!) says that matter cannot be created or destroyed. But perhaps this law took place once matter and energy were formed/created. Meaning we, as creatures made up of matter and energy, cannot create matter and energy, even though matter and energy once had a beginning.

Also why would the existence of God be unlikely? Lets say that matter and energy have always existed. Life did not though. So how did life form? Well its either in the absence or presence of a being outside of space and time. If its the former then we are working on random events. I understand that even in an infinite universe that all possible events would happen eventually. But I honestly find it impossible (or so VERY slim that it might as well be considered impossible)that atoms and molecules would form in the precise way to allow for life and form every living thing we know of today. To me THAT seems unlikely.

804

Here’s a thought experiment:

Let’s say that we discovered advanced life similar to our own on a distance planet. And for the sake of argument, although we did not have the technology to travel there, we did find a way to communicate by radio. What if we discover they had no belief in the God you embrace. Does that shake your belief? Or would you engage in the mental gymnastics necessary to justify your God? Feel free to substitute an advanced contact that visited us.

I don’t really have a point here, I’m just musing.

805

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s far from bullet proof, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much criticism of the cosmological argument in the scientific community.

Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god.

If matter is contingent on charge in order to exist, that is identical to god being contingent on omnipotence in order to exist. If matter didn’t have charge, it wouldn’t be matter. If god didn’t have omnipotence, he wouldn’t be god.

I’m just asking for consistency in your logic. I don’t think things are nearly as bulletproof as you claim. We know very, very, very little about the universe and are far from being able to claim any particular theory is bulletproof.[/quote]

Have you looked at any of the criticism seriously? All the criticism in sum is one thing, there may be an infinitesimal chance of something besides the Necessary being that may be non-contingent. Unfortunately, there is not an inkling, no reference or inference subjectively or deductively, of such a thing even possibly existing.
So just from an empirical point of view, what is more probable, that which has evidence of it’s existence, or that which has none?

Second, it’s not a scientific argument. It can use science, or not. It does not matter.

Matter/ energy may exist forever, but keep in mind that conservation laws only apply to isolated systems. The apparent flatness of this universe gives rise to the possibility that it’s an open system and conservation suffers.

You’re jumping ahead, we can only infer that said Necessary being is God. We can deduce the uncaused-cause. It is certainly plausible that, that which exists, uncaused and yet causes would likely have knowledge of it all, but you cannot deduce that. You can only deduce what is by definition true. The rest is inference.

And do you know of a consistently challenged argument that has withstood the test of time unrefuted? That alone doesn’t make it right, but it’s credibility damn sure goes up with each passing moment.[/quote]

An infinitesimal chance? Why the need to exaggerate? There are theories now that seriously undermine it. Even big bang proponents are conceding the possibility of a universe antecedent to the big bang and so forth and so on.

The best we can say is that causation exists based on our observations. Nothing more, nothing less. Conversely, we KNOW the universe acts in ways we cannot directly observe. Pat, we don’t even have gravity figured out or time, how can you sit there and say a thought experiment (the CA) proves itself factual?[/quote]

There are certainly interesting theories out there, feel free to bring one up to discuss.[/quote]

Well, “time” for one. We cannot have this discussion (or explore CA further) without the hard wired constructs of our experience with “time”. In other words, the CA discussion always involves time or, as you have also added, “outside of time.” Both are nonetheless concepts of “time” - something we do not understand. A little food for thought (light reading): http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

There are a couple of things there that are instructive. First, motion may not necessarily be “time” per se as you have alluded to. Time is just the physical construct of our experience by which we measure movement. If movement is not “time” as we understand it and as the CA attempts to deductively travel back to a “first cause” or an “uncaused cause”, we are simply left with a state of “being”. In a universe absent our concept and experience of time, there is no logical need for a “first cause” or any permutation of any cause. Again, we cannot even fathom that can we? We’re not hard wired for it. Everything we experience has a beginning and end. We cannot fathom eternal.

The very concept of “spacetime” suggest a static past/present/future. A block of time or existence. Time can also not travel backward, but that is exactly what the CA attempts to do by deductively suggesting a first cause - you’re attempting to travel back in time, which appears to be an impossibility based on our current understanding of time.

It’s late, I’m babbling. Good stuff though. Wish I could dedicate more time to its study.[/quote]

I’m rested now :slight_smile:

Where I was going with the above is that if movement is NOT time (and I believe it is not) then why does a “first cause” become necessary? In fact, if time does not exist as we experience and measure it (and isn’t it odd that once time is removed that some theories/equations start to fit nicely together?), that is a very strong case for eternity.

Now, all this being said, I do not think any of this obviates God. As I said before, I do not think we can understand the nature and the mind of the divine. We are trapped inside a “time trap” of our experience, of our primitive hard wiring, which will always lead us to need to imagine a “beginning” or a “cause”.

806

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god. >>>[/quote]Very VERY VERY GOOD!!! That’s exactly right. The God I worship is wholly, utterly and comprehensively UN-contingent. He exists, thinks, rules, reigns and decrees based upon absolutely nothing, NAH THEENG, save for His own infinitely perfect and mighty will. You have hit the nail exactly on the head here bub. Of course in your very next post you’ll completely betray the truth you have by the remaining image of God and His common grace here declared. You can’t help it. You have the form, but not the substance. Just like everybody else.

BodyGuard please observe. The God in whose hand is the whole of creation has provided a living object lesson whereby even the scorn of sinners is made to praise His glorious name. He’ll have no idea what I’m talking about, but I have a feeling that you and Jake might.
[/quote]

Why do I feel like a puppy that was just tossed a scooby snack?

If everything I said is exactly right, then matter and energy are completely noncontingent. I’m sure you didn’t mean to admit that, so please correct it for the record if that’s the case.

The point of recognizing that matter and energy can’t be created is that it obviates the need for a creator. It turns your god into a fabrication of your mind and heart, based on a deep psychological need to find comfort and direction in a universe that is frightening to many.

Of course, there could still be a god despite all of that. It just doesn’t seem likely, and it certainly isn’t necessary.[/quote]LOL!!! I didn’t meant it exactly like that man, but there was a hint of sanctified sarcasm in there. My point is, as it’s always been, that both your universe and Pat’s God are equally contingent. Or if equally non contingent then Aristotle’s “analogy of being” is correct and the God of scripture cannot exist by definition as he would be equal with his creation. The creature/creator distinction is utterly foundational in the bible. The God revealed there is contingent upon NOTHING external to Himself and is hence, even on a philosophical level, the only explanation for anything whatsoever. Aquinas did gravely err in his intellectual whoredom with Athens.

The point of recognizing that WE cannot create matter or energy or conceive of it’s emergence from nothing is to lead us directly into surrender to the one being who can and does. Read Romans 1 again.
[/quote]

Very VERY VERY GOOD!!! :wink: This is exactly my point:

Of course, your convictions won’t allow for the possibility that the god of scripture doesn’t really exist, despite that being the logical conclusion.

The laws of conservation don’t state that men can’t create matter and energy. They state that matter and energy, by virtue of their nature, cannot be created, period.

To your credit though, you don’t pretend to confirm your beliefs through logic or evidence. No amount of logic or evidence would make any difference to your beliefs.

Unfortunately, that also means that you risk being driven by subconscious desires and emotions, and like a ship without a rudder, you become the sport of every wind.

807

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god. >>>[/quote]Very VERY VERY GOOD!!! That’s exactly right. The God I worship is wholly, utterly and comprehensively UN-contingent. He exists, thinks, rules, reigns and decrees based upon absolutely nothing, NAH THEENG, save for His own infinitely perfect and mighty will. You have hit the nail exactly on the head here bub. Of course in your very next post you’ll completely betray the truth you have by the remaining image of God and His common grace here declared. You can’t help it. You have the form, but not the substance. Just like everybody else.

BodyGuard please observe. The God in whose hand is the whole of creation has provided a living object lesson whereby even the scorn of sinners is made to praise His glorious name. He’ll have no idea what I’m talking about, but I have a feeling that you and Jake might.
[/quote]

Why do I feel like a puppy that was just tossed a scooby snack?

If everything I said is exactly right, then matter and energy are completely noncontingent. I’m sure you didn’t mean to admit that, so please correct it for the record if that’s the case.

The point of recognizing that matter and energy can’t be created is that it obviates the need for a creator. It turns your god into a fabrication of your mind and heart, based on a deep psychological need to find comfort and direction in a universe that is frightening to many.

Of course, there could still be a god despite all of that. It just doesn’t seem likely, and it certainly isn’t necessary.[/quote]

The thing is, lets say matter and energy have always existed. The first law of thermodyn. (HA, sounds like cyberdyne. Look out for Ahhhnold!) says that matter cannot be created or destroyed. But perhaps this law took place once matter and energy were formed/created. Meaning we, as creatures made up of matter and energy, cannot create matter and energy, even though matter and energy once had a beginning.

Also why would the existence of God be unlikely? Lets say that matter and energy have always existed. Life did not though. So how did life form? Well its either in the absence or presence of a being outside of space and time. If its the former then we are working on random events. I understand that even in an infinite universe that all possible events would happen eventually. But I honestly find it impossible (or so VERY slim that it might as well be considered impossible)that atoms and molecules would form in the precise way to allow for life and form every living thing we know of today. To me THAT seems unlikely. [/quote]

It’s possible the laws of the universe could change, or that we only understand their application within the narrow scope of our experience. Of course, that possibility only reinforces my point that we are ignorant infants, and are far from being able to conclude the cosmological theory, or any other theory, is likely to be true.

Given that ignorance, we can’t really say how likely it is that life would form. It’s even possible that life never formed, but like matter and energy has always existed. As you say though, in a universe of infinite possibilities, everything can happen, however infinitesimally remote that possibility is.

808

[quote]forlife wrote:

I will, but first would like to hear your thoughts on my point that god is a contingent being since god has attributes, like the ability to cause, without which god wouldn’t exist.[/quote]

I have already addressed this before, remember? If Uncaused-cause didn’t cause then it would not be a causer, just the only thing that exists. But if anything else exist then his causal property remains. It actually would not destroy who he is, it would destroy who we are. ‘It’ isn’t dependent on causation everything else is.

809

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

All the laws by which the universe functions are based on math. If it were not everything would be random.

Now I want you to address my entire points. Not skip the hard questions and reask me questions. I am waiting for you to answer one.[/quote]

The laws on which the universe functions have NOTHING to do with mathematics. Mathematics is an intellectual, abstract construct. The number two does not exist outside of our mind, and nor does any other mathematical relationship.[/quote]

I agree 100%. Pat however would vehemently disagree.[/quote]

You guessed correctly, I disagree. Numbers and the functions of mathematics are just representations of things around us, either real or imaginary. The things that they represent exist whether we know it or not. Mathematical truths are true whether man can perceive them or not. If math were a purely human construct, it would be a worthless tool to use to understand the world around us.
Even if we changed what is represented, the represented ‘objects’ and the way the function still exist. 2 and ii are the same thing, regardless of the symbols we use to represent them.

810

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

All the laws by which the universe functions are based on math. If it were not everything would be random.

Now I want you to address my entire points. Not skip the hard questions and reask me questions. I am waiting for you to answer one.[/quote]

The laws on which the universe functions have NOTHING to do with mathematics. Mathematics is an intellectual, abstract construct. The number two does not exist outside of our mind, and nor does any other mathematical relationship.[/quote]

If the universe did not function on the basis of mathematical constructs, math could not be used to understand anything about them. That’s not the same as a planet sitting down and figuring out it’s own orbit, but it does so based on principals that we can understand using numbers. You are right though, it is abstract. [/quote]

The point I’m making is that what we call mathematics is like looking at a cloud and seeing a dog, or a cat, or a face. Mathematics is what we use to INTERPRET what we see. The fact that it describes what happens in the universe under certain conditions is not amazing at all. It HAS to describe it, because we deduced those mathematical relationships from the universe around us.

For example, why does 2+2=4? If you take two sets of two stones, it is no amazing property of the universe that putting them together gives you 4 stones. This is because BY OUR DEFINITION, four stones IS two sets of two stones. WE define the concept of four ourselves. Its a subtle point, but you can draw the same conclusions from the most complex mathematics, and when you do think of it like that, it is enough to drive you nuts.

The universe does its thing and we merely watch and interpret.

Albert Einstein - “as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”[/quote]

“because we deduced those mathematical relationships from the universe around us.” ← That’s all that needs to be said, but I would say it kinda disproves your point.

Our definition demands that 2+2=4? So when would it not equal 4?
Even if no living thing ever existed, 2+2 is still going to equal 4. Whether it’s something only humans use isn’t really the issue. It is what it is and cannot change.

811

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I will, but first would like to hear your thoughts on my point that god is a contingent being since god has attributes, like the ability to cause, without which god wouldn’t exist.[/quote]

I have already addressed this before, remember? If Uncaused-cause didn’t cause then it would not be a causer, just the only thing that exists. But if anything else exist then his causal property remains. It actually would not destroy who he is, it would destroy who we are. ‘It’ isn’t dependent on causation everything else is.[/quote]

Yes, but that still doesn’t address my point.

If one of god’s properties is the ability to cause, then god is contingent on that property in order to be an uncaused cause. Lacking that property, god couldn’t be an uncaused cause. Therefore, in order to be an uncaused cause, god must be a contingent being. Even if he isn’t caused and has the ability to cause, he is still contingent.

812

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
God loves us so much, he kills every single one of us.[/quote]

LOL!
Don’t know about the killing us part, but he damn sure didn’t promise us a rose garden. And we will die, but I don’t care. There are things worse than death, like one of my kids dying.
But when I go, I go, chuck some dirt on me and go party.

Actually, I’d like to be taxidermied…It’d be an interesting conversation piece.

813

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god. >>>[/quote]Very VERY VERY GOOD!!! That’s exactly right. The God I worship is wholly, utterly and comprehensively UN-contingent. He exists, thinks, rules, reigns and decrees based upon absolutely nothing, NAH THEENG, save for His own infinitely perfect and mighty will. You have hit the nail exactly on the head here bub. Of course in your very next post you’ll completely betray the truth you have by the remaining image of God and His common grace here declared. You can’t help it. You have the form, but not the substance. Just like everybody else.

BodyGuard please observe. The God in whose hand is the whole of creation has provided a living object lesson whereby even the scorn of sinners is made to praise His glorious name. He’ll have no idea what I’m talking about, but I have a feeling that you and Jake might.
[/quote]

Why do I feel like a puppy that was just tossed a scooby snack?

If everything I said is exactly right, then matter and energy are completely noncontingent. I’m sure you didn’t mean to admit that, so please correct it for the record if that’s the case.

The point of recognizing that matter and energy can’t be created is that it obviates the need for a creator. It turns your god into a fabrication of your mind and heart, based on a deep psychological need to find comfort and direction in a universe that is frightening to many.

Of course, there could still be a god despite all of that. It just doesn’t seem likely, and it certainly isn’t necessary.[/quote]

The thing is, lets say matter and energy have always existed. The first law of thermodyn. (HA, sounds like cyberdyne. Look out for Ahhhnold!) says that matter cannot be created or destroyed. But perhaps this law took place once matter and energy were formed/created. Meaning we, as creatures made up of matter and energy, cannot create matter and energy, even though matter and energy once had a beginning.

Also why would the existence of God be unlikely? Lets say that matter and energy have always existed. Life did not though. So how did life form? Well its either in the absence or presence of a being outside of space and time. If its the former then we are working on random events. I understand that even in an infinite universe that all possible events would happen eventually. But I honestly find it impossible (or so VERY slim that it might as well be considered impossible)that atoms and molecules would form in the precise way to allow for life and form every living thing we know of today. To me THAT seems unlikely. [/quote]

There’s a second part to it, matter cannot be created or destroyed, in an isolated, energy can escape in a closed system and in an open system there are no bounds. The universe is thought to be either open or closed, but not isolated.

Also, matter and energy cannot act on their own, they must be acted upon.

814

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Here’s a thought experiment:

Let’s say that we discovered advanced life similar to our own on a distance planet. And for the sake of argument, although we did not have the technology to travel there, we did find a way to communicate by radio. What if we discover they had no belief in the God you embrace. Does that shake your belief? Or would you engage in the mental gymnastics necessary to justify your God? Feel free to substitute an advanced contact that visited us.

I don’t really have a point here, I’m just musing.[/quote]

I don’t think it would be mental gymnastics, it just depends on why. If they had proof there is no God, then I would be interested to see it. If they never had exposure, I don’t think it would make any difference to me.

815

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s far from bullet proof, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much criticism of the cosmological argument in the scientific community.

Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god.

If matter is contingent on charge in order to exist, that is identical to god being contingent on omnipotence in order to exist. If matter didn’t have charge, it wouldn’t be matter. If god didn’t have omnipotence, he wouldn’t be god.

I’m just asking for consistency in your logic. I don’t think things are nearly as bulletproof as you claim. We know very, very, very little about the universe and are far from being able to claim any particular theory is bulletproof.[/quote]

Have you looked at any of the criticism seriously? All the criticism in sum is one thing, there may be an infinitesimal chance of something besides the Necessary being that may be non-contingent. Unfortunately, there is not an inkling, no reference or inference subjectively or deductively, of such a thing even possibly existing.
So just from an empirical point of view, what is more probable, that which has evidence of it’s existence, or that which has none?

Second, it’s not a scientific argument. It can use science, or not. It does not matter.

Matter/ energy may exist forever, but keep in mind that conservation laws only apply to isolated systems. The apparent flatness of this universe gives rise to the possibility that it’s an open system and conservation suffers.

You’re jumping ahead, we can only infer that said Necessary being is God. We can deduce the uncaused-cause. It is certainly plausible that, that which exists, uncaused and yet causes would likely have knowledge of it all, but you cannot deduce that. You can only deduce what is by definition true. The rest is inference.

And do you know of a consistently challenged argument that has withstood the test of time unrefuted? That alone doesn’t make it right, but it’s credibility damn sure goes up with each passing moment.[/quote]

An infinitesimal chance? Why the need to exaggerate? There are theories now that seriously undermine it. Even big bang proponents are conceding the possibility of a universe antecedent to the big bang and so forth and so on.

The best we can say is that causation exists based on our observations. Nothing more, nothing less. Conversely, we KNOW the universe acts in ways we cannot directly observe. Pat, we don’t even have gravity figured out or time, how can you sit there and say a thought experiment (the CA) proves itself factual?[/quote]

There are certainly interesting theories out there, feel free to bring one up to discuss.[/quote]

Well, “time” for one. We cannot have this discussion (or explore CA further) without the hard wired constructs of our experience with “time”. In other words, the CA discussion always involves time or, as you have also added, “outside of time.” Both are nonetheless concepts of “time” - something we do not understand. A little food for thought (light reading): http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

There are a couple of things there that are instructive. First, motion may not necessarily be “time” per se as you have alluded to. Time is just the physical construct of our experience by which we measure movement. If movement is not “time” as we understand it and as the CA attempts to deductively travel back to a “first cause” or an “uncaused cause”, we are simply left with a state of “being”. In a universe absent our concept and experience of time, there is no logical need for a “first cause” or any permutation of any cause. Again, we cannot even fathom that can we? We’re not hard wired for it. Everything we experience has a beginning and end. We cannot fathom eternal.

The very concept of “spacetime” suggest a static past/present/future. A block of time or existence. Time can also not travel backward, but that is exactly what the CA attempts to do by deductively suggesting a first cause - you’re attempting to travel back in time, which appears to be an impossibility based on our current understanding of time.

It’s late, I’m babbling. Good stuff though. Wish I could dedicate more time to its study.[/quote]

I’m rested now :slight_smile:

Where I was going with the above is that if movement is NOT time (and I believe it is not) then why does a “first cause” become necessary? In fact, if time does not exist as we experience and measure it (and isn’t it odd that once time is removed that some theories/equations start to fit nicely together?), that is a very strong case for eternity.

Now, all this being said, I do not think any of this obviates God. As I said before, I do not think we can understand the nature and the mind of the divine. We are trapped inside a “time trap” of our experience, of our primitive hard wiring, which will always lead us to need to imagine a “beginning” or a “cause”. [/quote]

If time were not a measure or was something more? I’d ask, what is it? Where’d it come from, or what caused it? And why does it exist?
It would still fall neatly under causality, until proven otherwise.

That’s really simplicity of the argument, it doesn’t matter how weird, complex, unusual, or simple the ‘thing’ in question, is always reasonable to ask what caused it. And if it wasn’t then what about it makes it non-contingent.

816

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I will, but first would like to hear your thoughts on my point that god is a contingent being since god has attributes, like the ability to cause, without which god wouldn’t exist.[/quote]

I have already addressed this before, remember? If Uncaused-cause didn’t cause then it would not be a causer, just the only thing that exists. But if anything else exist then his causal property remains. It actually would not destroy who he is, it would destroy who we are. ‘It’ isn’t dependent on causation everything else is.[/quote]

Yes, but that still doesn’t address my point.

If one of god’s properties is the ability to cause, then god is contingent on that property in order to be an uncaused cause. Lacking that property, god couldn’t be an uncaused cause. Therefore, in order to be an uncaused cause, god must be a contingent being. Even if he isn’t caused and has the ability to cause, he is still contingent. [/quote]

Actually, in this case it would be backwards, as your dealing with a non-contingent being. The ability to cause and not be caused depends on the NCB, not the NCB depending on causality for it’s existence. But if it could not cause, you’d still have a non-contingent being and that’s it. Causality depends on the non-contingent being and not really the other way around. Why? It has to by definition. Otherwise, the non-contingent being wouldn’t be non-contingent. You cannot have a non-contingent being with contingencies.

817

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Here’s a thought experiment:

Let’s say that we discovered advanced life similar to our own on a distance planet. And for the sake of argument, although we did not have the technology to travel there, we did find a way to communicate by radio. What if we discover they had no belief in the God you embrace. Does that shake your belief? Or would you engage in the mental gymnastics necessary to justify your God? Feel free to substitute an advanced contact that visited us.

I don’t really have a point here, I’m just musing.[/quote]

I don’t think it would be mental gymnastics, it just depends on why. If they had proof there is no God, then I would be interested to see it. If they never had exposure, I don’t think it would make any difference to me.[/quote]

Fair enough; but how would you explain a civilization similar to ours or even more advanced without exposure to God? Isn’t that thought necessarily “human-centric” and myopic?

818

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god. >>>[/quote]Very VERY VERY GOOD!!! That’s exactly right. The God I worship is wholly, utterly and comprehensively UN-contingent. He exists, thinks, rules, reigns and decrees based upon absolutely nothing, NAH THEENG, save for His own infinitely perfect and mighty will. You have hit the nail exactly on the head here bub. Of course in your very next post you’ll completely betray the truth you have by the remaining image of God and His common grace here declared. You can’t help it. You have the form, but not the substance. Just like everybody else.

BodyGuard please observe. The God in whose hand is the whole of creation has provided a living object lesson whereby even the scorn of sinners is made to praise His glorious name. He’ll have no idea what I’m talking about, but I have a feeling that you and Jake might.
[/quote]

Why do I feel like a puppy that was just tossed a scooby snack?

If everything I said is exactly right, then matter and energy are completely noncontingent. I’m sure you didn’t mean to admit that, so please correct it for the record if that’s the case.

The point of recognizing that matter and energy can’t be created is that it obviates the need for a creator. It turns your god into a fabrication of your mind and heart, based on a deep psychological need to find comfort and direction in a universe that is frightening to many.

Of course, there could still be a god despite all of that. It just doesn’t seem likely, and it certainly isn’t necessary.[/quote]LOL!!! I didn’t meant it exactly like that man, but there was a hint of sanctified sarcasm in there. My point is, as it’s always been, that both your universe and Pat’s God are equally contingent. Or if equally non contingent then Aristotle’s “analogy of being” is correct and the God of scripture cannot exist by definition as he would be equal with his creation. The creature/creator distinction is utterly foundational in the bible. The God revealed there is contingent upon NOTHING external to Himself and is hence, even on a philosophical level, the only explanation for anything whatsoever. Aquinas did gravely err in his intellectual whoredom with Athens.

The point of recognizing that WE cannot create matter or energy or conceive of it’s emergence from nothing is to lead us directly into surrender to the one being who can and does. Read Romans 1 again.
[/quote]

“My point is, as it’s always been, that both your universe and Pat’s God are equally contingent.” ← Which is proof you don’t understand the argument, at all.
No worries, keep avoiding the hard questions and roll around in the poetic nonsense continuously spew.
Aquinas’s whordom? You mean like your whoredom to Calvinism, in opposition to the scripture? OK, I’ll side with Aquinas… He knew what he was talking about.

819

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I will, but first would like to hear your thoughts on my point that god is a contingent being since god has attributes, like the ability to cause, without which god wouldn’t exist.[/quote]

I have already addressed this before, remember? If Uncaused-cause didn’t cause then it would not be a causer, just the only thing that exists. But if anything else exist then his causal property remains. It actually would not destroy who he is, it would destroy who we are. ‘It’ isn’t dependent on causation everything else is.[/quote]

Yes, but that still doesn’t address my point.

If one of god’s properties is the ability to cause, then god is contingent on that property in order to be an uncaused cause. Lacking that property, god couldn’t be an uncaused cause. Therefore, in order to be an uncaused cause, god must be a contingent being. Even if he isn’t caused and has the ability to cause, he is still contingent. [/quote]

Actually, in this case it would be backwards, as your dealing with a non-contingent being. The ability to cause and not be caused depends on the NCB, not the NCB depending on causality for it’s existence. But if it could not cause, you’d still have a non-contingent being and that’s it. Causality depends on the non-contingent being and not really the other way around. Why? It has to by definition. Otherwise, the non-contingent being wouldn’t be non-contingent. You cannot have a non-contingent being with contingencies. [/quote]

I’m not talking about the uncaused part, I’m talking about the causer part.

You’re arguing that god causes. This is an attribute of god that is independent of whether or not god is uncaused. Any causer must therefore be a contingent being, because without that attribute he couldn’t cause. As you say, he would only be uncaused.

The only logical possibility for a noncontingent thing would be for it to be noncontingent, and to have no other attributes. Even one additional attribute, like being able to cause, turns the thing into a contingent entity.

That is, unless you recognize that having attributes doesn’t make something contingent.

820

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s far from bullet proof, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much criticism of the cosmological argument in the scientific community.

Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god.

If matter is contingent on charge in order to exist, that is identical to god being contingent on omnipotence in order to exist. If matter didn’t have charge, it wouldn’t be matter. If god didn’t have omnipotence, he wouldn’t be god.

I’m just asking for consistency in your logic. I don’t think things are nearly as bulletproof as you claim. We know very, very, very little about the universe and are far from being able to claim any particular theory is bulletproof.[/quote]

Have you looked at any of the criticism seriously? All the criticism in sum is one thing, there may be an infinitesimal chance of something besides the Necessary being that may be non-contingent. Unfortunately, there is not an inkling, no reference or inference subjectively or deductively, of such a thing even possibly existing.
So just from an empirical point of view, what is more probable, that which has evidence of it’s existence, or that which has none?

Second, it’s not a scientific argument. It can use science, or not. It does not matter.

Matter/ energy may exist forever, but keep in mind that conservation laws only apply to isolated systems. The apparent flatness of this universe gives rise to the possibility that it’s an open system and conservation suffers.

You’re jumping ahead, we can only infer that said Necessary being is God. We can deduce the uncaused-cause. It is certainly plausible that, that which exists, uncaused and yet causes would likely have knowledge of it all, but you cannot deduce that. You can only deduce what is by definition true. The rest is inference.

And do you know of a consistently challenged argument that has withstood the test of time unrefuted? That alone doesn’t make it right, but it’s credibility damn sure goes up with each passing moment.[/quote]

An infinitesimal chance? Why the need to exaggerate? There are theories now that seriously undermine it. Even big bang proponents are conceding the possibility of a universe antecedent to the big bang and so forth and so on.

The best we can say is that causation exists based on our observations. Nothing more, nothing less. Conversely, we KNOW the universe acts in ways we cannot directly observe. Pat, we don’t even have gravity figured out or time, how can you sit there and say a thought experiment (the CA) proves itself factual?[/quote]

There are certainly interesting theories out there, feel free to bring one up to discuss.[/quote]

Well, “time” for one. We cannot have this discussion (or explore CA further) without the hard wired constructs of our experience with “time”. In other words, the CA discussion always involves time or, as you have also added, “outside of time.” Both are nonetheless concepts of “time” - something we do not understand. A little food for thought (light reading): http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

There are a couple of things there that are instructive. First, motion may not necessarily be “time” per se as you have alluded to. Time is just the physical construct of our experience by which we measure movement. If movement is not “time” as we understand it and as the CA attempts to deductively travel back to a “first cause” or an “uncaused cause”, we are simply left with a state of “being”. In a universe absent our concept and experience of time, there is no logical need for a “first cause” or any permutation of any cause. Again, we cannot even fathom that can we? We’re not hard wired for it. Everything we experience has a beginning and end. We cannot fathom eternal.

The very concept of “spacetime” suggest a static past/present/future. A block of time or existence. Time can also not travel backward, but that is exactly what the CA attempts to do by deductively suggesting a first cause - you’re attempting to travel back in time, which appears to be an impossibility based on our current understanding of time.

It’s late, I’m babbling. Good stuff though. Wish I could dedicate more time to its study.[/quote]

I’m rested now :slight_smile:

Where I was going with the above is that if movement is NOT time (and I believe it is not) then why does a “first cause” become necessary? In fact, if time does not exist as we experience and measure it (and isn’t it odd that once time is removed that some theories/equations start to fit nicely together?), that is a very strong case for eternity.

Now, all this being said, I do not think any of this obviates God. As I said before, I do not think we can understand the nature and the mind of the divine. We are trapped inside a “time trap” of our experience, of our primitive hard wiring, which will always lead us to need to imagine a “beginning” or a “cause”. [/quote]

If time were not a measure or was something more? I’d ask, what is it? Where’d it come from, or what caused it? And why does it exist?
It would still fall neatly under causality, until proven otherwise.

That’s really simplicity of the argument, it doesn’t matter how weird, complex, unusual, or simple the ‘thing’ in question, is always reasonable to ask what caused it. And if it wasn’t then what about it makes it non-contingent.[/quote]

I respectfully think you’re missing the point. It is possible that “time” is a wholly human construct to measure our observation of things and our finite experience with the universe. This is not far fetched given that eliminating our concept of time from a number of mathematical physical theories makes the theories work and merge with other theories.

I posit, and have believed for some time now, that “time” does not exist. Again, time is part of our “hard wiring”.

I agree that it is always reasonable to ask what caused a thing - within our observable experience. And we cannot ask what caused a thing that simply does not exist.

Would you argue that time, like math, exists outside the human experience?