Guys, can we discuss SCIENCE without defending a given theory or making it personal? Who are any of us to “defend” a theory. We’re discussing science and philosophy. Let’s discuss it. It’s too interesting to get sidetracked with personal agendas and quibbling. There’s good stuff here, let’s not ruin it.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< 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. >>>[/quote]See now I told him you wouldn’t have any idea what I was talking about.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Which is proof you don’t understand the argument, at all. >>>[/quote]I’m not addressing the cosmological argument at all. It’s frivolous mental masturbation by itself as is on 6 foot neon display here. I asked you what questions I avoided. You ignored me so what can I say?
EDIT: I don’t remember for certain Pat if you ever said you were married or not, but I think so. Are you? You have my word right here and now that I will never disrespect your marriage or your wife. EVER.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< 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. >>>[/quote]See now I told him you wouldn’t have any idea what I was talking about.
[/quote]
You’ve said the same about yourself, even admitting that those of us who do believe in logic and evidence have the upper hand within that realm.
Oh, and I’m not as dense as you make me out to be. I was a believer like you once, remember? God uses the wicked to accomplish His purpose, don’t ya know?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Causation depends on the necessary being, not the other way around. It can still exist even if it did not cause. To say that he cannot cause, means your no longer talking about the necessary being. It’s the same as saying there is no God. Or deductively speaking no uncaused causer. Keep in mind the God reference is inferred, not deduced.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[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 
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? [/quote]
Yes, time is the measure relative measure of movement against either two (or more) objects or through space, moving at different speeds. The way we measure time time is a human construct, but so long is there is relative movement, there is some semblance of time.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Causation depends on the necessary being, not the other way around. It can still exist even if it did not cause. To say that he cannot cause, means your no longer talking about the necessary being. It’s the same as saying there is no God. Or deductively speaking no uncaused causer. Keep in mind the God reference is inferred, not deduced.[/quote]
But you’re not addressing the logical inconsistency. You’re basically saying that you can label something noncontingent, and magically it becomes immune to the criticisms you apply to everything else because you labeled it that way.
I can do exactly the same thing with matter and energy. I can label matter and energy noncontingent, and suddenly the fact that matter and energy have attributes no longer matters because I’ve labeled it noncontingent.
I’m just asking you to apply the logic consistently.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Which is proof you don’t understand the argument, at all. >>>[/quote]I’m not addressing the cosmological argument at all. It’s frivolous mental masturbation by itself as is on 6 foot neon display here. I asked you what questions I avoided. You ignored me so what can I say?
EDIT: I don’t remember for certain Pat if you ever said you were married or not, but I think so. Are you? You have my word right here and now that I will never disrespect your marriage or your wife. EVER.[/quote]
A frivolous mental masturbation? Forgive me but you seem fixated on sexual themes when regards to anything you don’t like. Whores, masturbation, etc. What’s the deal with that? You have sex issues or something?
Second, it beats hitting people over the head with a bible, you know that tactic has never, ever worked, right?
I say cosmology, you say Genesis 1:1 as a literal account. Why do you take Genesis as a literal account of creation, and not many of the tenets of the New Testament. Are claiming to be a biblical literalist, or selective biblical literalist.
I don’t recall you asking which questions you did not answer but I can tell you. Predestination, what if you were ‘elect’ and your family is not?
Also, how can you change anybody if they were predestined to be what they are? What’s the point of faith at all if you cannot change or improve at all.
Seems to me, either you don’t understand how rigid, damning and condemning it is. If we are predestined, everything we say or do has been determined and nothing we want or do can be by choice. Just because the word is used in scripture, does not mean that we are predestined. Murder is used in the bible, doesn’t mean we can murder.
If you really believe in predestination, then any beef you have with me, you actually have with God himself. He made me this way and there is nothing I can do about it, according to TULIP.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Causation depends on the necessary being, not the other way around. It can still exist even if it did not cause. To say that he cannot cause, means your no longer talking about the necessary being. It’s the same as saying there is no God. Or deductively speaking no uncaused causer. Keep in mind the God reference is inferred, not deduced.[/quote]
But you’re not addressing the logical inconsistency. You’re basically saying that you can label something noncontingent, and magically it becomes immune to the criticisms you apply to everything else because you labeled it that way.
I can do exactly the same thing with matter and energy. I can label matter and energy noncontingent, and suddenly the fact that matter and energy have attributes no longer matters because I’ve labeled it noncontingent.
I’m just asking you to apply the logic consistently.
[/quote]
What you label it does not matter. Matter and energy are contingent. They depend on other stuff for their existence and something other than themselves to act on them. We’re in a realm that cannot be sensed.
A non-contingent being has to be non-contingent. If you apply contingencies to it, it no longer is non-contingent and you are no longer talking about the same thing, but something different.
Therefore, if you have a non-contingent being, any attributes it has must depend on it and not the other way around, or your just not talking about a non-contingent being.
A non-contingent being cannot have contingencies.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Causation depends on the necessary being, not the other way around. It can still exist even if it did not cause. To say that he cannot cause, means your no longer talking about the necessary being. It’s the same as saying there is no God. Or deductively speaking no uncaused causer. Keep in mind the God reference is inferred, not deduced.[/quote]
But you’re not addressing the logical inconsistency. You’re basically saying that you can label something noncontingent, and magically it becomes immune to the criticisms you apply to everything else because you labeled it that way.
I can do exactly the same thing with matter and energy. I can label matter and energy noncontingent, and suddenly the fact that matter and energy have attributes no longer matters because I’ve labeled it noncontingent.
I’m just asking you to apply the logic consistently.
[/quote]
What you label it does not matter. Matter and energy are contingent. They depend on other stuff for their existence and something other than themselves to act on them. We’re in a realm that cannot be sensed.
A non-contingent being has to be non-contingent. If you apply contingencies to it, it no longer is non-contingent and you are no longer talking about the same thing, but something different.
Therefore, if you have a non-contingent being, any attributes it has must depend on it and not the other way around, or your just not talking about a non-contingent being.
A non-contingent being cannot have contingencies. [/quote]
You’re saying that god is noncontingent, therefore all of god’s attributes depend on god and not the other way around. It must be that way, because…god is noncontingent.
I can say exactly the same thing about matter and energy.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Which is proof you don’t understand the argument, at all. >>>[/quote]I’m not addressing the cosmological argument at all. It’s frivolous mental masturbation by itself as is on 6 foot neon display here. I asked you what questions I avoided. You ignored me so what can I say?
EDIT: I don’t remember for certain Pat if you ever said you were married or not, but I think so. Are you? You have my word right here and now that I will never disrespect your marriage or your wife. EVER.[/quote]
Also, how can you change anybody if they were predestined to be what they are? What’s the point of faith at all if you cannot change or improve at all.
Seems to me, either you don’t understand how rigid, damning and condemning it is. If we are predestined, everything we say or do has been determined and nothing we want or do can be by choice. Just because the word is used in scripture, does not mean that we are predestined. Murder is used in the bible, doesn’t mean we can murder.
If you really believe in predestination, then any beef you have with me, you actually have with God himself. He made me this way and there is nothing I can do about it, according to TULIP.[/quote]
This is where I was trying to go awhile ago Tirib. If predestination then fatalism, but any calvinist worth his salt will say that we don’t know if God is going to use us to help save someone, so we must act. All of the sudden the life of a calvinist looks remarkably like that of a Catholic (mind you we are different), but the Christian life looks really similar. But back to that part about you haveing a role in the salvation of others as God’s instrument. It is God doing the saving, but He does use people to do things and you don’t think we are willing participants? This is the point I attempted to make awhile ago that calvinism works in theory, but not in practice.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
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.[/quote]
Causation depends on the necessary being, not the other way around. It can still exist even if it did not cause. To say that he cannot cause, means your no longer talking about the necessary being. It’s the same as saying there is no God. Or deductively speaking no uncaused causer. Keep in mind the God reference is inferred, not deduced.[/quote]
But you’re not addressing the logical inconsistency. You’re basically saying that you can label something noncontingent, and magically it becomes immune to the criticisms you apply to everything else because you labeled it that way.
I can do exactly the same thing with matter and energy. I can label matter and energy noncontingent, and suddenly the fact that matter and energy have attributes no longer matters because I’ve labeled it noncontingent.
I’m just asking you to apply the logic consistently.
[/quote]
What you label it does not matter. Matter and energy are contingent. They depend on other stuff for their existence and something other than themselves to act on them. We’re in a realm that cannot be sensed.
A non-contingent being has to be non-contingent. If you apply contingencies to it, it no longer is non-contingent and you are no longer talking about the same thing, but something different.
Therefore, if you have a non-contingent being, any attributes it has must depend on it and not the other way around, or your just not talking about a non-contingent being.
A non-contingent being cannot have contingencies. [/quote]
You’re saying that god is noncontingent, therefore all of god’s attributes depend on god and not the other way around. It must be that way, because…god is noncontingent.
I can say exactly the same thing about matter and energy.
[/quote]
You can say anything, but in this case you’d be wrong. We already know it’s very dependent and can do nothing on it’s own. We’ve already been down that road. Further, conservation depends on the container. It also speaks to matter and energy as it is known in this universe, and quite frankly we know very little about it. Doesn’t mean the law is wrong, it just means we do not know all the circumstances where the law does or does not apply.
Further, just scientifically speaking alone, there are two huge problems with the theory. The big bang and black holes. Solving one would probably explain the other.
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Which is proof you don’t understand the argument, at all. >>>[/quote]I’m not addressing the cosmological argument at all. It’s frivolous mental masturbation by itself as is on 6 foot neon display here. I asked you what questions I avoided. You ignored me so what can I say?
EDIT: I don’t remember for certain Pat if you ever said you were married or not, but I think so. Are you? You have my word right here and now that I will never disrespect your marriage or your wife. EVER.[/quote]
Also, how can you change anybody if they were predestined to be what they are? What’s the point of faith at all if you cannot change or improve at all.
Seems to me, either you don’t understand how rigid, damning and condemning it is. If we are predestined, everything we say or do has been determined and nothing we want or do can be by choice. Just because the word is used in scripture, does not mean that we are predestined. Murder is used in the bible, doesn’t mean we can murder.
If you really believe in predestination, then any beef you have with me, you actually have with God himself. He made me this way and there is nothing I can do about it, according to TULIP.[/quote]
This is where I was trying to go awhile ago Tirib. If predestination then fatalism, but any calvinist worth his salt will say that we don’t know if God is going to use us to help save someone, so we must act. All of the sudden the life of a calvinist looks remarkably like that of a Catholic (mind you we are different), but the Christian life looks really similar. But back to that part about you haveing a role in the salvation of others as God’s instrument. It is God doing the saving, but He does use people to do things and you don’t think we are willing participants? This is the point I attempted to make awhile ago that calvinism works in theory, but not in practice.[/quote]
I disagree, well sort of. Lots of things sound good in theory including communism and atheism (no accountability, woohoo!). I think TULIP is hopelessly flawed from the outset, based on errored thinking and poor interpretation.
Unlike, others I don’t think it’s practitioners will go to hell. It’s not an error to be wrong, it’s an error to refuse to seek the truth though.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< 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. >>>[/quote]See now I told him you wouldn’t have any idea what I was talking about.
[/quote]
You’ve said the same about yourself, even admitting that those of us who do believe in logic and evidence have the upper hand within that realm.
Oh, and I’m not as dense as you make me out to be. I was a believer like you once, remember? God uses the wicked to accomplish His purpose, don’t ya know?[/quote]No, I have not said I don’t believe in logic or evidence. What I did say is that logic only functions correctly when redeemed from sin by and self consciously submitted to the God who created it. Like a hundred times. In the malfunctioning realm of the contingent autonomous intellect of pagan philosophy, Catholic thomistic and yes even Arminian protestant epistemology, any explanation for anything makes at least as much objective sense as any other and rank unbelief is probably more consistent.
You were never a believer like me. You could be. Repent, trust in the living Christ for your forgiveness, forsake your self willed rebellion, and live.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
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.[/quote]
Causation depends on the necessary being, not the other way around. It can still exist even if it did not cause. To say that he cannot cause, means your no longer talking about the necessary being. It’s the same as saying there is no God. Or deductively speaking no uncaused causer. Keep in mind the God reference is inferred, not deduced.[/quote]
But you’re not addressing the logical inconsistency. You’re basically saying that you can label something noncontingent, and magically it becomes immune to the criticisms you apply to everything else because you labeled it that way.
I can do exactly the same thing with matter and energy. I can label matter and energy noncontingent, and suddenly the fact that matter and energy have attributes no longer matters because I’ve labeled it noncontingent.
I’m just asking you to apply the logic consistently.
[/quote]
What you label it does not matter. Matter and energy are contingent. They depend on other stuff for their existence and something other than themselves to act on them. We’re in a realm that cannot be sensed.
A non-contingent being has to be non-contingent. If you apply contingencies to it, it no longer is non-contingent and you are no longer talking about the same thing, but something different.
Therefore, if you have a non-contingent being, any attributes it has must depend on it and not the other way around, or your just not talking about a non-contingent being.
A non-contingent being cannot have contingencies. [/quote]
You’re saying that god is noncontingent, therefore all of god’s attributes depend on god and not the other way around. It must be that way, because…god is noncontingent.
I can say exactly the same thing about matter and energy.
[/quote]
You can say anything, but in this case you’d be wrong. We already know it’s very dependent and can do nothing on it’s own. We’ve already been down that road. Further, conservation depends on the container. It also speaks to matter and energy as it is known in this universe, and quite frankly we know very little about it. Doesn’t mean the law is wrong, it just means we do not know all the circumstances where the law does or does not apply.
Further, just scientifically speaking alone, there are two huge problems with the theory. The big bang and black holes. Solving one would probably explain the other.[/quote]
You’re using circular reasoning.
You claim matter and energy are contingent. To prove it, you point to the attributes of matter and energy, insisting that having attributes somehow proves they are dependent.
However, when I apply that identical logic to god, you say it is a special exception because…god is noncontingent.
As another example, you claim the laws of conservation don’t universally apply because they’re restricted to a closed system…but in the next breath you point to causality as a universal law that proves the cosmological argument must be true, while ignoring that causality could also be restricted to a closed system.
And so the circle goes on.
I won’t keep beating the dead horse. I’ve made my point, and if it doesn’t make any sense to you, there’s no point in discussing it further. If it is obvious to you that the cosmological argument must be true, that’s cool
It’s nice being able to discuss this stuff without it getting personal. I find it all fascinating.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< 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. >>>[/quote]See now I told him you wouldn’t have any idea what I was talking about.
[/quote]
You’ve said the same about yourself, even admitting that those of us who do believe in logic and evidence have the upper hand within that realm.
Oh, and I’m not as dense as you make me out to be. I was a believer like you once, remember? God uses the wicked to accomplish His purpose, don’t ya know?[/quote]No, I have not said I don’t believe in logic or evidence. What I did say is that logic only functions correctly when redeemed from sin by and self consciously submitted to the God who created it. Like a hundred times. In the malfunctioning realm of the contingent autonomous intellect of pagan philosophy, Catholic thomistic and yes even Arminian protestant epistemology, any explanation for anything makes at least as much objective sense as any other and rank unbelief is probably more consistent.
You were never a believer like me. You could be. Repent, trust in the living Christ for your forgiveness, forsake your self willed rebellion, and live.
[/quote]
You want the form of logic and evidence, without the substance. It’s transparently obvious that whenever your beliefs are contradicted by logic and evidence, you dismiss the contradiction as “sinful, fallen man logic” and console yourself that god has it all figured out. No amount of logic and evidence will ever cause you to question your beliefs, and because of that it’s clear that your nod to logic and evidence is nothing but a sham.
In a sense, you’re right. I never believed in a puppet god that denies men free agency. However, I believed very deeply that I had a personal relationship with God, that I had been redeemed through the atoning blood of Christ, and that I would live with Him in eternity. If there is a God, Pat is much closer to Him than you are. Your discipleship to Calvin directly contradicts the core message that Jesus taught.
Copy and pasted from another thread I was starting to derail.
dnlcdstn wrote:
Flame away, but it would much easier to believe in any religions if there was some kind of evidence or some kind of interaction in the last thousand years or so. To me the story is set up so people never lose faith b/c when you do the apocalypse comes.
It like me telling you to follow the rainbow and at the end you get a pot of gold(go to heaven) Now, you can not deviate from this path or the pot disappears. When you ask how long is the path? My answer is “Well, no one knows.” Believe me though there is a pot of gold. Do as I say and you surely will receive it. You have to blindly follow what I say or risk losing it when it may not even exist.
And for this one world gov talk. Yes, it’s gonna happen at some point. People have known that forever. Eventually as one country conquers another then another it will happen. The conquering has slowed down in present times, but it is happening. Everything is based off a corporate structure and as corporations eat one another the number dwindle and each one that lasts becomes bigger.
Soooo, eventually there will be a one world gov.
This is not meant to bash religion, but I need something concrete to see and feel.
Find a thread on here discussing religion (or something similar) and I can address some things there. Like Bible Contradictions 2.0 for example. I just don’t want to derail this thread.
Forbes, explain to me your argument against ones like I posted. Not a call out, rather a reach out to learn something new to me.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< If there is a God, Pat is much closer to Him than you are. >>>[/quote]This should worry him, but it won’t.
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
Copy and pasted from another thread I was starting to derail.
dnlcdstn wrote:
Flame away, but it would much easier to believe in any religions if there was some kind of evidence or some kind of interaction in the last thousand years or so. To me the story is set up so people never lose faith b/c when you do the apocalypse comes.
It like me telling you to follow the rainbow and at the end you get a pot of gold(go to heaven) Now, you can not deviate from this path or the pot disappears. When you ask how long is the path? My answer is “Well, no one knows.” Believe me though there is a pot of gold. Do as I say and you surely will receive it. You have to blindly follow what I say or risk losing it when it may not even exist.
And for this one world gov talk. Yes, it’s gonna happen at some point. People have known that forever. Eventually as one country conquers another then another it will happen. The conquering has slowed down in present times, but it is happening. Everything is based off a corporate structure and as corporations eat one another the number dwindle and each one that lasts becomes bigger.
Soooo, eventually there will be a one world gov.
This is not meant to bash religion, but I need something concrete to see and feel.
Find a thread on here discussing religion (or something similar) and I can address some things there. Like Bible Contradictions 2.0 for example. I just don’t want to derail this thread.
Forbes, explain to me your argument against ones like I posted. Not a call out, rather a reach out to learn something new to me.[/quote]
Naaaaa man, I feel like you’re calling me out, soooo…fooey on you. Im not answering anything!
Naa Im just kidding 
Evidence. Evidence is a good thing. It supports one’s cause. First I would like to start off by recommending that you look up Josh McDowell’s two volume book: Evidence that Demands a Verdict. I like those books because they’re not really books. They are a collection of notes that the author has taken over the years while gathering information about the historicity, accuracy, validity and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.
Anyways, let me tell you something. I give answers better when I know specifically what the individual believes. So may I ask what is your world view on the Universe, life (and how it began), morals, evolution etc. And specifically, what do you find about Christianity specifically hard to believe? What concepts make you confused, or weary?
With this information I can better help you my friend.
Lookin’ ripped!
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
Copy and pasted from another thread I was starting to derail.
dnlcdstn wrote:
Flame away, but it would much easier to believe in any religions if there was some kind of evidence or some kind of interaction in the last thousand years or so. To me the story is set up so people never lose faith b/c when you do the apocalypse comes.
It like me telling you to follow the rainbow and at the end you get a pot of gold(go to heaven) Now, you can not deviate from this path or the pot disappears. When you ask how long is the path? My answer is “Well, no one knows.” Believe me though there is a pot of gold. Do as I say and you surely will receive it. You have to blindly follow what I say or risk losing it when it may not even exist.
And for this one world gov talk. Yes, it’s gonna happen at some point. People have known that forever. Eventually as one country conquers another then another it will happen. The conquering has slowed down in present times, but it is happening. Everything is based off a corporate structure and as corporations eat one another the number dwindle and each one that lasts becomes bigger.
Soooo, eventually there will be a one world gov.
This is not meant to bash religion, but I need something concrete to see and feel.
Find a thread on here discussing religion (or something similar) and I can address some things there. Like Bible Contradictions 2.0 for example. I just don’t want to derail this thread.
Forbes, explain to me your argument against ones like I posted. Not a call out, rather a reach out to learn something new to me.[/quote]
I’ll try to take on the idea of the one world government. It’s true that something similar has happened many times in the past (Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Mongol, or whatever Empire). This is a particular interpreation in the Book of Revelation also. Was it talking about the literal entire world or the world known to the author and audience. Obviously if you take the idea that it’s not the entire world, then somebody will think that God’s knowledge would be limited or God would be a liar. Not quite so. What would be the purpose of God giving revelations of lands that were totally unknown and unreachable to the audience that was reading about them? So it may be that the one world governemnt only speaks of a government that would rule the area known to the audience (i.e. the Roman Empire).
It may also be that if these events were to take place in the future, Revelation was referring to one type of goverment system (i.e. socialism). I couldn’t agree with the idea that at some time in the future one nation will truly rule the entire world. Although it’s possible with technological break throughs that it may be easier someday. Hey, it could be like the Terminator.