Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
841

[quote]forbes wrote:

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]

Well, my belief is that there IS some kind of energy, entity, or something that started all this. I do believe in the big bang theory. I’m not sure how many bangs there have been. I think eventually the universe will stop expanding and black holes will devour all objects including each other until the last two where one eats the other and at that point another bang will occur.

Why life starts is where I begin to wonder. I mean why don’t rocks and gases and such just be? Why do organisms spring into life? There’s gotta be a reason. Something created the laws of physics and gave life the opportunity to thrive.

As far as morals I believe we should have morals, rules, and punishments to enforce a way of life that is comfortable for all people. I think most of our survival instincts carry over into our daily decisions. Animals don’t think twice about killing for food or killing to survive a conflict. People do b/c we can think deeper and farther ahead. Part of me thinks we should run around with no laws and whoever lives lives and the weak or unprepared die. Now, once you live this way and realize that anyone at any point can die and it’s stupid when we are smart enough to thrive along side each other. No one has to lose.

Why do some kill, steal, and lie? Because they simply don’t care. I’m not sure if it’s genetic or what. I do believe though that if you do something bad that balance should be restored and if you kill you die as well. Fuck the live on death row shit unless it cannot be proven. When financial crimes (whether they are considered crimes or not) happen we should be able to follow the paper trail and not only restore balance, but punish. When you hear about politicians and banker conspiring together and a select few get super rich while an abundance of people suffer it bothers me. They may get off b/c of loopholes, lawyers and such but we should take every dime from them and throw 'em out on the street.

So, being the most intelligent beings we should be able to live side by side and thrive together. However, it’s human nature to position yourself to survive the most efficient way possible. It may have been carrying the biggest stick and sharpest tools, now it’s networking with other influential people and increasing wealth. If everyone got along it would be hard to position yourself above others. If you divide people (divide and conquer) you can leverage yourself above those busy fighting one another. I think religion is a tool to divide. That’s why some make money from both sides of a war. Sick, but human nature.

842

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:<<< 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 have said a thousand times that God never EVER violates the wills of His creatures in ordering all things to His own glory and by His providence. Forget Calvinism. The doctrines of grace ARE the gospel. Calvin (and Luther to a lesser degree) simply gets credit for republishing what was long buried under the humanistic tradition of Rome. An actually all sovereign God is the only thing that works in theory OR practice once the foundation of the mind is properly surrendered to Him which is only possible by the very grace of that actually all sovereign God.

843

[quote]pat wrote:

[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 :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? [/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]

“some semblance of time”…and therein lies the problem…it’s “sensed”, we’re hard wired to perceive it but does it really exist? I’m leaning to no. You have to admit that not only do we not understand it, but when the math behind two very important theories suddenly agree when you drop time from both, it is intriguing.

844

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:<<< 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 have said a thousand times that God never EVER violates the wills of His creatures in ordering all things to His own glory and by His providence. Forget Calvinism. The doctrines of grace ARE the gospel. Calvin (and Luther to a lesser degree) simply gets credit for republishing what was long buried under the humanistic tradition of Rome. An actually all sovereign God is the only thing that works in theory OR practice once the foundation of the mind is properly surrendered to Him which is only possible by the very grace of that actually all sovereign God.
[/quote]

Is that you Jack Crick?

845

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

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]

Well, my belief is that there IS some kind of energy, entity, or something that started all this. I do believe in the big bang theory. I’m not sure how many bangs there have been. I think eventually the universe will stop expanding and black holes will devour all objects including each other until the last two where one eats the other and at that point another bang will occur.

Why life starts is where I begin to wonder. I mean why don’t rocks and gases and such just be? Why do organisms spring into life? There’s gotta be a reason. Something created the laws of physics and gave life the opportunity to thrive.

As far as morals I believe we should have morals, rules, and punishments to enforce a way of life that is comfortable for all people. I think most of our survival instincts carry over into our daily decisions. Animals don’t think twice about killing for food or killing to survive a conflict. People do b/c we can think deeper and farther ahead. Part of me thinks we should run around with no laws and whoever lives lives and the weak or unprepared die. Now, once you live this way and realize that anyone at any point can die and it’s stupid when we are smart enough to thrive along side each other. No one has to lose.

Why do some kill, steal, and lie? Because they simply don’t care. I’m not sure if it’s genetic or what. I do believe though that if you do something bad that balance should be restored and if you kill you die as well. Fuck the live on death row shit unless it cannot be proven. When financial crimes (whether they are considered crimes or not) happen we should be able to follow the paper trail and not only restore balance, but punish. When you hear about politicians and banker conspiring together and a select few get super rich while an abundance of people suffer it bothers me. They may get off b/c of loopholes, lawyers and such but we should take every dime from them and throw 'em out on the street.

So, being the most intelligent beings we should be able to live side by side and thrive together. However, it’s human nature to position yourself to survive the most efficient way possible. It may have been carrying the biggest stick and sharpest tools, now it’s networking with other influential people and increasing wealth. If everyone got along it would be hard to position yourself above others. If you divide people (divide and conquer) you can leverage yourself above those busy fighting one another. I think religion is a tool to divide. That’s why some make money from both sides of a war. Sick, but human nature.
[/quote]

Lets start our way from the top and work our way down:

So you believe that there is a divine being outside the reaches of time and space. And this being obviously has abilities far outside our understanding.

If this being created us, would you not expect for him to set up ground rules for us to follow? And punishment for breaking these rules? Would he also not provide a way to communicate with him?

846

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:<<< Is that you Jack Crick?[/quote]Naaah, Chick’s a dispensationalist. Could never be me though many fine people are. I stand wholly responsible for everything I post unless otherwise noted. Before you bombard me with questions please look through my posting history. Everything you are ever likely ask me is there.

847

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

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]

Well, my belief is that there IS some kind of energy, entity, or something that started all this. I do believe in the big bang theory. I’m not sure how many bangs there have been. I think eventually the universe will stop expanding and black holes will devour all objects including each other until the last two where one eats the other and at that point another bang will occur.

Why life starts is where I begin to wonder. I mean why don’t rocks and gases and such just be? Why do organisms spring into life? There’s gotta be a reason. Something created the laws of physics and gave life the opportunity to thrive.

As far as morals I believe we should have morals, rules, and punishments to enforce a way of life that is comfortable for all people. I think most of our survival instincts carry over into our daily decisions. Animals don’t think twice about killing for food or killing to survive a conflict. People do b/c we can think deeper and farther ahead. Part of me thinks we should run around with no laws and whoever lives lives and the weak or unprepared die. Now, once you live this way and realize that anyone at any point can die and it’s stupid when we are smart enough to thrive along side each other. No one has to lose.

Why do some kill, steal, and lie? Because they simply don’t care. I’m not sure if it’s genetic or what. I do believe though that if you do something bad that balance should be restored and if you kill you die as well. Fuck the live on death row shit unless it cannot be proven. When financial crimes (whether they are considered crimes or not) happen we should be able to follow the paper trail and not only restore balance, but punish. When you hear about politicians and banker conspiring together and a select few get super rich while an abundance of people suffer it bothers me. They may get off b/c of loopholes, lawyers and such but we should take every dime from them and throw 'em out on the street.

So, being the most intelligent beings we should be able to live side by side and thrive together. However, it’s human nature to position yourself to survive the most efficient way possible. It may have been carrying the biggest stick and sharpest tools, now it’s networking with other influential people and increasing wealth. If everyone got along it would be hard to position yourself above others. If you divide people (divide and conquer) you can leverage yourself above those busy fighting one another. I think religion is a tool to divide. That’s why some make money from both sides of a war. Sick, but human nature.
[/quote]

Lets start our way from the top and work our way down:

So you believe that there is a divine being outside the reaches of time and space. And this being obviously has abilities far outside our understanding.

If this being created us, would you not expect for him to set up ground rules for us to follow? And punishment for breaking these rules? Would he also not provide a way to communicate with him?[/quote]

Reasonable rhetorical (to you) questions above.

I think you can just as easily make the case that there is no need whatsoever to set up any ground rules to follow. When we study the way our social structures formed from small groups, to tribes, to villages, etc., the “laws” of your bible are rendered pretty much practicalities for having a society. In other words, to use but one example, I think man gets to “thou shalt not murder” without any such command.

However, if there was such a rule book, I’d expect its deliverance to be clear, unadulterated and beyond dispute. Religion has offered nothing of the kind.

As for “punishment”, I think the growth of social structures I described earlier explain and provide for inevitable punishments as a matter of practicality.

848

[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]

You want proof for faith? I’ll say that is a little bit of a contradiction, but maybe you can explain last comment.

849

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Revelation was referring to one type of goverment system (i.e. socialism).[/quote]

What? Where do you get that Revelation was referring to socialism?

850

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

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]

Well, my belief is that there IS some kind of energy, entity, or something that started all this. I do believe in the big bang theory. I’m not sure how many bangs there have been. I think eventually the universe will stop expanding and black holes will devour all objects including each other until the last two where one eats the other and at that point another bang will occur.

Why life starts is where I begin to wonder. I mean why don’t rocks and gases and such just be? Why do organisms spring into life? There’s gotta be a reason. Something created the laws of physics and gave life the opportunity to thrive.

As far as morals I believe we should have morals, rules, and punishments to enforce a way of life that is comfortable for all people. I think most of our survival instincts carry over into our daily decisions. Animals don’t think twice about killing for food or killing to survive a conflict. People do b/c we can think deeper and farther ahead. Part of me thinks we should run around with no laws and whoever lives lives and the weak or unprepared die. Now, once you live this way and realize that anyone at any point can die and it’s stupid when we are smart enough to thrive along side each other. No one has to lose.

Why do some kill, steal, and lie? Because they simply don’t care. I’m not sure if it’s genetic or what. I do believe though that if you do something bad that balance should be restored and if you kill you die as well. Fuck the live on death row shit unless it cannot be proven. When financial crimes (whether they are considered crimes or not) happen we should be able to follow the paper trail and not only restore balance, but punish. When you hear about politicians and banker conspiring together and a select few get super rich while an abundance of people suffer it bothers me. They may get off b/c of loopholes, lawyers and such but we should take every dime from them and throw 'em out on the street.

[/quote]

Because our nature is corrupted by Original Sin, we’re not wretches though.

You should do a word study of the word religion, religion basically means a way to reconcile oneself to another to bring closer. Although religion may separate, at least Catholicism is true and made by G-d and not man. You can’t reason Catholicism, that’s why Protestants aren’t fond of Catholicism, because so much has be to taken on faith, even though we do recommend reason, you have to stand firm on Jesus to reason the rest.

851

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
Is that you Jack Crick?[/quote]

Lol.

852

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:Is that you Jack Crick?[/quote]Lol.[/quote]That IS pretty funny huh? I’ve never read this one. He has hundreds. http://www.missionaryfamilies.org/images/chick/Are%20Roman%20Catholics%20Christians/Are%20Roman%20Catholics%20Christians.htm

853

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:Is that you Jack Crick?[/quote]Lol.[/quote]That IS pretty funny huh? I’ve never read this one. He has hundreds. http://www.missionaryfamilies.org/images/chick/Are%20Roman%20Catholics%20Christians/Are%20Roman%20Catholics%20Christians.htm
[/quote]

Yes, they are very funny and at the same time, incorrect. If you wish Tirib, I will show Chick’s errors if you wish. Say the word, Chick makes it very easy. Here, I’ll show you in the case of confession.

The Sacrament of Penance

  • Sins are forgiven by G-d alone (in this case Jesus, as He is the One Priest), not Priests by their own powers, but Priests act “in persona Christi” as it says in the Latin Vulgate or in the English 2 Corinthians 2:10: “And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ..” And, you can find that in our doctrines, including the Bible. :wink:

In future confessions, Helen actually must confess every Mortal sin she remembers, confessing all of her sins is good, but not required (just Mortal sins that she remembers, and for good measure she should to ask G-d in her act of contrition to forgive those that she does not remember and those that her memory has hidden from her for eternity). After awhile, one hopes to be in a state of grace where the only sins one would confess are venial sins or has no need for confession at all. Most don’t, but that is the state of affairs since as a monk in the desert once said, in the future [we in this generation] are fighting Satan unchained.

Who does Jesus, James, and the G-d (specifically in the Old Testament) instruct believers to go to when they sin?

James tells us, “Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.”

What does Jesus have to say about confessing our sins? Jesus tells to the Apostles (the Greek is a plural “you,” I believe) “And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” So, Jesus just gave the apostles the ability to forgive and not forgive sins, and what they do has affects all the way up to Heaven. Now, do priests, in themselves, have the power to forgive sins? No, do they have the power, when “in persona Christi” have the power to forgive sins? Yes. The scribes couldn’t believe man had the power to forgive sins either, and last time I checked no one wanted to be a scribe.

What does the Old Testament say about all this? Well in Lev 4; 5:1-13; 6:24-30; 8:14-17; 16:3-22 it tells us when we sin we’re to take our sacrifices to the High Priest, which our Priests, Bishops, &c. participate in the One Priesthood when they do it “in persona Christi” as Christ is the last High Priest forever with no end.

The idea of a confessional came about very recently within the Catholic Church, it is a bit scandalous so I won’t go into the details of why we have a confessional, but it was for utilitarian reasons, not because we worship the sun god “Baal” which if you know anything about exorcism history, the Catholic Church knows as a confirmed name of Satan, and any of the faithful should never worship Baal.

Yes, the confessional is one of man’s invention, it is not needed though, it is not part of doctrine or canon law, but like I said was used for utilitarian purposes.

The word priest comes from the Greek word Presbyter which is translated into English properly as “priest” as well, the old testament has High Priests, and Jesus is called High Priest. Now, did we have the myopic definition of “priest” in the first centuries, no, that definition came with time, but is by no chance against the Bible. After all there was the Aaron Priesthood and Levitical Priesthood, which would give us idea that they had Priests. And, was Jesus not Jewish? Did he not himself create the Jewish religion? Are G-d’s convenants in vain?

Pope is translated as Father, the Eastern Orthodox call their Bishops (and, I believe Priests) Popes. We just call one of our Bishops Pope. The words “nun” and “monk” are not commonly used in official language of the Church. It is a popular rather than a scientific designation, but is at the same time very ancient. The word is likely from the Anglo-Saxon word munuc, which came from the Latin monachus, which is a transliteration of the Greek monachos. This is popularly thought to be connected with monos (which means lonely or single), which the word monos is suggestive of a life of solitude. However, there is another word that is used in conjunction with monos and that is mone, different root, like monasterion, which is a religious house. St. Jerome, which Luther agreed with several times (even though both were incorrect, however St. Jerome reconciled his views), said to Heliodorus (P.L., XXII, 350), “Interpret the name monk, it is thine own; what business hast thou in a crowd, thou who art solitary?” St. Augustine uses the idea of unity (monas) in writing about Psalm 82.

You can learn more about the word “monk” here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Monk

For the rest of it, all of it can be proven wrong through history, and actual study of the Bible and the Doctrines (which all can be read and studied in the Catechism).

854

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:Is that you Jack Crick?[/quote]Lol.[/quote]That IS pretty funny huh? I’ve never read this one. He has hundreds. http://www.missionaryfamilies.org/images/chick/Are%20Roman%20Catholics%20Christians/Are%20Roman%20Catholics%20Christians.htm
[/quote]

Yes, they are very funny and at the same time, incorrect. If you wish Tirib, I will show Chick’s errors if you wish. Say the word, Chick makes it very easy. Here, I’ll show you in the case of confession. >>>[/quote]You don’t have to do that Chris. lol. Chick is notoriously inaccurate though he does get some of it right. His tracts range from solid on the salvation message to downright screwy on other stuff. In other words he’s a dispensationalist =]

855

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[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]

Following Calvin’s weird doctrine of a puppeteer god rather than the living God of the bible should worry you, but it won’t.

856

[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]

“What I did say is that logic only functions correctly when redeemed from sin…” ← LOL! Uh what? This is utterly meaningless. How the hell is logic ‘redeemed from sin’?

No, according to you and that silly apostate Calvin, we have no choice, therefore we cannot repent, we cannot believe, we cannot do or be anything but what we were predestined to. Either you do not understand the finality and fatalism of predetermination, or you really don’t believe in it. I can’t help but think that Calvin has ruined many people’s faith. I am no expert but I believe that to be a bad thing.

857

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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 :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? [/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]

“some semblance of time”…and therein lies the problem…it’s “sensed”, we’re hard wired to perceive it but does it really exist? I’m leaning to no. You have to admit that not only do we not understand it, but when the math behind two very important theories suddenly agree when you drop time from both, it is intriguing. [/quote]

I believe relative movement and change happen outside human understanding. How we subdivide it in to understandable chunks is our perception. So long as the movement is stable, we should be able to understand it a time. If it fluctuates in unpredictable ways then we cannot measure it.
So I think your right and wrong. The measurements we use for time are a human construct, but what they are measuring is not.

858

[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:

[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.
[/quote]
No, I am not, at all.

It has attributes that make them what they are. With out them, they are not what they are. Further, this can actually be and has been done empirically. They can be broken down further and what they are broken into, are necessary to it’s existence. Linear accelerators do this regularly. Hell, what do you think that big ass Hadron Collider in Switzerland does? It shoots these elementary particles at each other at near the speed of light to smash them in to each other and destroy them to see what happens.
Your probably the only person I have ever heard arguing that matter and energy exists because it exists and that’s it. And that, is circular reasoning. It affirms the antecedent. It’s here because it’s here is not the answer.

He has to be or he isn’t the Necessary Being. If you identify a contingency that makes ‘it’ what it is, then you are not talking about a non-contingent being, but a contingent one and therefore, you got the wrong thing.

Causal properties, have no dependence on the universe, closed or open systems. Science depends on causation, but not the other way around. In the heirachy of forms causal relationships sits above science or math. It’s not a scientific tenet, it’s a logical one. Logic does not need science, but science needs logic or it has no meaning.

There is no circle, the logic is perfectly linear.

[quote]
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 :slight_smile:

It’s nice being able to discuss this stuff without it getting personal. I find it all fascinating.[/quote]

I agree that discussing things cordially is a far better way to go and I appreciate you being able to do that.
The cosmological argument, until proven wrong, is my go to. I really don’t know if it can be proven wrong. I do think science is not going to be able to do it, because you cannot empirically measure nothingness, and that’s a huge problem.

859

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

“What I did say is that logic only functions correctly when redeemed from sin…” ← LOL! Uh what? This is utterly meaningless. How the hell is logic ‘redeemed from sin’?

No, according to you and that silly apostate Calvin, we have no choice, therefore we cannot repent, we cannot believe, we cannot do or be anything but what we were predestined to. Either you do not understand the finality and fatalism of predetermination, or you really don’t believe in it. I can’t help but think that Calvin has ruined many people’s faith. I am no expert but I believe that to be a bad thing. [/quote]

He’s claiming that being fallible, our logic is inherently flawed. We may not understand how god grants people free will, while at the same time determining all of our fates entirely independently of that will, but that’s only because we don’t understand the mind of god.

It’s a convenient trick for dismissing every single logical or factual inconsistency, and allowing people to believe whatever they want. They begin with the foregone conclusion that it is god’s will, and force everything to conform with that conclusion.

Classic confirmatory bias.

860

[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:

[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.
[/quote]
No, I am not, at all.

It has attributes that make them what they are. With out them, they are not what they are. Further, this can actually be and has been done empirically. They can be broken down further and what they are broken into, are necessary to it’s existence. Linear accelerators do this regularly. Hell, what do you think that big ass Hadron Collider in Switzerland does? It shoots these elementary particles at each other at near the speed of light to smash them in to each other and destroy them to see what happens.
Your probably the only person I have ever heard arguing that matter and energy exists because it exists and that’s it. And that, is circular reasoning. It affirms the antecedent. It’s here because it’s here is not the answer.

He has to be or he isn’t the Necessary Being. If you identify a contingency that makes ‘it’ what it is, then you are not talking about a non-contingent being, but a contingent one and therefore, you got the wrong thing.

Causal properties, have no dependence on the universe, closed or open systems. Science depends on causation, but not the other way around. In the heirachy of forms causal relationships sits above science or math. It’s not a scientific tenet, it’s a logical one. Logic does not need science, but science needs logic or it has no meaning.

There is no circle, the logic is perfectly linear.

[quote]
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 :slight_smile:

It’s nice being able to discuss this stuff without it getting personal. I find it all fascinating.[/quote]

I agree that discussing things cordially is a far better way to go and I appreciate you being able to do that.
The cosmological argument, until proven wrong, is my go to. I really don’t know if it can be proven wrong. I do think science is not going to be able to do it, because you cannot empirically measure nothingness, and that’s a huge problem.[/quote]

Your statement that “He has to be or he isn’t the Necessary Being” is the circular reasoning I’m talking about. What if there is no Necessary Being? If there is no Necessary Being, god is as contingent on his attributes as matter and energy are contingent on their attributes. If you’re trying to prove the cosmological argument, you can’t assume that god is a Necessary Being, and thus excuse him from contingency. The assumption itself is what you’re trying to prove, so you can’t make the assumption in the first place.

And how do you know causality applies everywhere, under all conditions? There may be randomness, and there may be noncontingency. There may be infinite regress. We simply don’t know enough to rule any of these things out, any more than we can rule out the possibility that the laws of conservation don’t apply everywhere.