Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
861

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

at the microscopic (quantum) level, there is fluctuation in unpredictable ways.

if relative movement and change do indeed happen outside human understanding, how do you then so dogmatically embrace causation, which falls squarely within human understanding?

In fact, your CA expressly uses causation as its assumption to make the deductive arguments it does. How can you state that movement and change occur outside human understanding in one respect, but so dogmatically embrace causation and then use that to make deductive arguments? By embracing the CA as you do, aren’t you in effect saying that “movement and change” occur squarely within our experience, e.g. “causation”?

What we are measuring? We’re probably very well just measuring our perception, a finite slice of a potentially infinite cosmos. If the cosmos is eternal, you’re measuring nothing more than our perception of “movement” in units that do not apply to the universe. That they “do not apply” is entirely possible. That they “do not apply” as we perceive or understand them is very clear.

And if there indeed is no beginning and no end, “causation” is rendered no more real than that imaginary unit of time. Wouldn’t you agree? Put aside your embrace for the CA for one moment. If the cosmos is eternal, causation has no more place in it than time. And since we already know we do not understand time, or that time simply does not “exist” except in our limited experience, is it really so “illogical” to find fault with the CA?

862

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

at the microscopic (quantum) level, there is fluctuation in unpredictable ways.

if relative movement and change do indeed happen outside human understanding, how do you then so dogmatically embrace causation, which falls squarely within human understanding?

In fact, your CA expressly uses causation as its assumption to make the deductive arguments it does. How can you state that movement and change occur outside human understanding in one respect, but so dogmatically embrace causation and then use that to make deductive arguments? By embracing the CA as you do, aren’t you in effect saying that “movement and change” occur squarely within our experience, e.g. “causation”?

What we are measuring? We’re probably very well just measuring our perception, a finite slice of a potentially infinite cosmos. If the cosmos is eternal, you’re measuring nothing more than our perception of “movement” in units that do not apply to the universe. That they “do not apply” is entirely possible. That they “do not apply” as we perceive or understand them is very clear.

And if there indeed is no beginning and no end, “causation” is rendered no more real than that imaginary unit of time. Wouldn’t you agree? Put aside your embrace for the CA for one moment. If the cosmos is eternal, causation has no more place in it than time. And since we already know we do not understand time, or that time simply does not “exist” except in our limited experience, is it really so “illogical” to find fault with the CA?[/quote]

Causality and time are not in the same class. Our perception of what time is and what it actually is may in fact be different than what it actually is. What we understand as time requires physical matter and requires it to move relative to either some other physical matter or through space which is defined by matter. Causality applies to non-physical as well the physical. It applies to matter as well as energy as well as time as well as morality, as well as methodology, etc. It happens despite our ability to perceive it. Our senses are actually incapable of discerning causal relationships absolutely. We can only infer them based on observation. That’s not the same as the deductive form. It really breaks down like a math problem.
If X and Y then Z, if not X, then not Z, if not Y, then not Z, BUT if not Z, you can still have X and Y. ← This is true no matter what. It’s true in space, its true in a multiverse, it’s true 20,000,000,000,000 billion years ago, or 20,000,000,000,000 billion years from now. You can add variables or remove down to two. It’s true under any circumstance, that’s why it’s deductive. It does not rely on circumstances to be true all you need is any kind of existence.

Basically, it’s true until proven false. While objector bring up possible scenarios, or what if’s that can cause contradiction, they have not yet brought compelling arguments that such scenarios actually exist in any realm.

863

[quote]forlife wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Human frailty isn’t really relevant so long as the outcome is logically consistent. We don’t have to know ‘the mind of God’ or even pretend we do. So it’s just a straw man to deflect the discussion. But that’s why it does not make any sense. Nobody claims to know the mind of God.

That whole fear of equating yourself with God is just plain stupid. I don’t believe in the horse crap that trying to acquire wisdom and knowledge is equal to trying to be God. It’s how people willfully stay ignorant and dumb. Willful ignorance serves neither man nor God.

864

[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:

[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.

It’s not the same thing. If you are deducing an uncaused-cause, or a necessary being, it has to be uncaused and necessary or it isn’t the ‘thing’ you are talking about. That’s not circular at all, it’s simply what must be the case in order to avoid a circular argument.
He’s not excused from contingency, he cannot be contingent, or he isn’t God…Rather, prefer at this point Necessary Being. Cannot deduce God, only infer from the necessary being, that they are one in the same.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

There cannot be an infinite regress. It is logically impossible. The action of regression goes either into a single thing or a nothing.

Fine, I’ll bite. Show me how randomness or non-causal ‘things’ can exist. How would you prove such an existence with out using the language of causation?

865

[quote]pat wrote:

Causality and time are not in the same class. Our perception of what time is and what it actually is may in fact be different than what it actually is. What we understand as time requires physical matter and requires it to move relative to either some other physical matter or through space which is defined by matter. Causality applies to non-physical as well the physical. It applies to matter as well as energy as well as time as well as morality, as well as methodology, etc. It happens despite our ability to perceive it. Our senses are actually incapable of discerning causal relationships absolutely. We can only infer them based on observation. That’s not the same as the deductive form. It really breaks down like a math problem.
If X and Y then Z, if not X, then not Z, if not Y, then not Z, BUT if not Z, you can still have X and Y. ← This is true no matter what. It’s true in space, its true in a multiverse, it’s true 20,000,000,000,000 billion years ago, or 20,000,000,000,000 billion years from now. You can add variables or remove down to two. It’s true under any circumstance, that’s why it’s deductive. It does not rely on circumstances to be true all you need is any kind of existence.

Basically, it’s true until proven false. While objector bring up possible scenarios, or what if’s that can cause contradiction, they have not yet brought compelling arguments that such scenarios actually exist in any realm.[/quote]

Pat, you seem to be all over the place here.

The way you just described it put time and causation squarely in the same class.

I’ve been stating all along, with others, than our perception of causation may in fact be different than what actually is. If I can perceive “time” that only exists in my experience with the universe, causation certainly can be likewise.

Your claim that time requires physical matter, also applies squarely to causation. What you ascribe to “non-physical” is indeed contingent upon the physical. There is certainly no morality without the physical man who imagines it, nor is there “methodology”.

Please provide a reference to one instance of causation that occurred without our perceiving it or beyond our ability to measure it.

And it’s not “true until proven false”. It’s a logical construct, word play, based on an unknown. It’s a mental exercise. No more, no less. Like I’ve said more than once, if all dogs don’t have fleas, this dog doesn’t.

The thing that I find most intriguing about your fervent defense of the CA, is that in my mind, the CA is not required for the divine to exist. If anything, the CA turns me away from the conclusion that there exists God. Whatever the answer, the potential illusion of causation does not get me there.

866

[quote]pat wrote:

Fine, I’ll bite. Show me how randomness or non-causal ‘things’ can exist. How would you prove such an existence with out using the language of causation?[/quote]

Man has not been able to prove anything about the origins of the cosmos. What we do know is time may very well be an illusion. You speak of terms such as “regress” which is in fact inextricably linked to our concept of time. If there is no “time” there is no thought to regress. There just “is”. And “is” is simply eternity.

While you can certainly have an intelligent designer (ID) to what we know as life and our universe, and you could certainly argue that that ID was a first cause to our “known existence”, that does not preclude the existence of the cosmos in one form or the other prior to the action of an ID. And we certainly cannot grasp to a potential illusion (causation) in an effort to deductively go back to the ID in a universe that may be eternal. The exercise assumes and absolute beginning where there may be no such beginning at all. The exercise assumes our existence is contemporaneous with the unknown cosmos instead of contemporaneous with an unknowable ID (God).

867

Pat, look at what you just wrote. If you’re deducing an uncaused cause…it has to be uncaused. You’re starting with the assumption that it is uncaused, without providing any proof that it actually is uncaused.

Infinite regress isn’t logically impossible. It’s as logically possible as infinite progress. For all we know, eternity extends in both directions, or maybe it is just circular.

For starters, you are claiming god exists, and is uncaused. How can you prove such an existence without using the language of causation?

How do you even discuss causation in the absence of matter, energy, and time? How does causation even exist in that environment?

868

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, look at what you just wrote. If you’re deducing an uncaused cause…it has to be uncaused. You’re starting with the assumption that it is uncaused, without providing any proof that it actually is uncaused.

Infinite regress isn’t logically impossible. It’s as logically possible as infinite progress. For all we know, eternity extends in both directions, or maybe it is just circular.

For starters, you are claiming god exists, and is uncaused. How can you prove such an existence without using the language of causation?

How do you even discuss causation in the absence of matter, energy, and time? How does causation even exist in that environment?[/quote]

Eternity if not a measure of time. Eternity is timeless. Eternal just “is”. No beginning, and no end. When I consider what I’ll call our “time trap”, I become more convinced the universe was just always here, in one form or the other, and always will be, neither being created nor destroyed, just changing.

This does not rule out God for me.

869

It’s odd when I think of it. The CA is supposed to lead you to the conclusion of God, and it really has moved me in an entirely different direction and to conclude that; God does not exist or, God IS the universe, or “God” was in fact an alien visitor to early earth hence the common themes within early religion or, there was an Intelligent Designer not necessarily divine.

I just cannot accept a non-contingent being. It’s illogical to me.

870

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s odd when I think of it. The CA is supposed to lead you to the conclusion of God, and it really has moved me in an entirely different direction and to conclude that; God does not exist or, God IS the universe, or “God” was in fact an alien visitor to early earth hence the common themes within early religion or, there was an Intelligent Designer not necessarily divine.

I just cannot accept a non-contingent being. It’s illogical to me.[/quote]You’re actually on the right overall track here dude. Odd as you may think it is me saying that. I cannot conceive of anything whatever before assuming the comprehensively non-contingent Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We couldn’t be further apart and yet are right on the other side of the door of eternity from each other. You’re a trillion spiritual miles away, but I can hear your footsteps.

Like me, you were conceived and born worshiping logic and your own autonomous use of it. You don’t self consciously intend to do that. It’s unavoidable in your present state. You assume the very non-contingency (deity) of your own logic that you deny to your creator. Either that or you have no reason to believe even in your own existence. If everything is contingent then nothing is certain which many unbelievers are willing to concede. However if true then even the notion of universal uncertainty is itself uncertain and off we go again.

No sir, there is in fact a triune God who is Himself the very definition of the one and the many. A plural unity, entirely non-contingent and the definer and definition of absolutely EVERYTHING. He lives in utterly comprehensive and contemporaneous absolute cognizance of ALL actual and possible objects of knowledge. Encompassing, but not limited to, as they are His creations, ALL actual and possible time and space. He has not and never will learn anything whatsoever in the sense of becoming aware of some previously unknown fact. He can’t (yes I did say that). It all depends ultimately on Him. He can and does, in snickering defiance of everything insolent fallen man thinks he knows, bring matter/energy into existence from absolutely nothing.

Hear King David son of Jessie:
139th Psalm:

[quote]1 O Lord, you have searched me and known me!
2 You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
you discern my thoughts from afar.
3 You search out my path and my lying down
and are acquainted with all my ways.
4 Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.
5 You hem me in, behind and before,
and lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high; I cannot attain it.
7 Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence? [/quote]All praise glory and honor be to Him who alone is God indeed.

871

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s odd when I think of it. The CA is supposed to lead you to the conclusion of God, and it really has moved me in an entirely different direction and to conclude that; God does not exist or, God IS the universe, or “God” was in fact an alien visitor to early earth hence the common themes within early religion or, there was an Intelligent Designer not necessarily divine.

I just cannot accept a non-contingent being. It’s illogical to me.[/quote]You’re actually on the right overall track here dude. Odd as you may think it is me saying that. I cannot conceive of anything whatever before assuming the comprehensively non-contingent Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We couldn’t be further apart and yet are right on the other side of the door of eternity from each other. You’re a trillion spiritual miles away, but I can hear your footsteps.

Like me, you were conceived and born worshiping logic and your own autonomous use of it. You don’t self consciously intend to do that. It’s unavoidable in your present state. You assume the very non-contingency (deity) of your own logic that you deny to your creator. Either that or you have no reason to believe even in your own existence. If everything is contingent then nothing is certain which many unbelievers are willing to concede. However if true then even the notion of universal uncertainty is itself uncertain and off we go again.

No sir, there is in fact a triune God who is Himself the very definition of the one and the many. A plural unity, entirely non-contingent and the definer and definition of absolutely EVERYTHING. He lives in utterly comprehensive and contemporaneous absolute cognizance of ALL actual and possible objects of knowledge. Encompassing, but not limited to, as they are His creations, ALL actual and possible time and space. He has not and never will learn anything whatsoever in the sense of becoming aware of some previously unknown fact. He can’t (yes I did say that). It all depends ultimately on Him. He can and does, in snickering defiance of everything insolent fallen man thinks he knows, bring matter/energy into existence from absolutely nothing.

Hear King David son of Jessie:
139th Psalm:

[quote]1 O Lord, you have searched me and known me!
2 You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
you discern my thoughts from afar.
3 You search out my path and my lying down
and are acquainted with all my ways.
4 Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.
5 You hem me in, behind and before,
and lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high; I cannot attain it.
7 Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence? [/quote]All praise glory and honor be to Him who alone is God indeed.
[/quote]

I respect your faith. I do sincerely. You are certainly genuine. And I respect that. But I do not share your faith. But thanks.

872

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< I respect your faith. I do sincerely. You are certainly genuine. And I respect that. But I do not share your faith. But thanks.[/quote]I assure you I was not suggesting that you did.

873

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s odd when I think of it. The CA is supposed to lead you to the conclusion of God, and it really has moved me in an entirely different direction and to conclude that; God does not exist or, God IS the universe, or “God” was in fact an alien visitor to early earth hence the common themes within early religion or, there was an Intelligent Designer not necessarily divine.

I just cannot accept a non-contingent being. It’s illogical to me.[/quote]You’re actually on the right overall track here dude. Odd as you may think it is me saying that. I cannot conceive of anything whatever before assuming the comprehensively non-contingent Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We couldn’t be further apart and yet are right on the other side of the door of eternity from each other. You’re a trillion spiritual miles away, but I can hear your footsteps.

Like me, you were conceived and born worshiping logic and your own autonomous use of it. You don’t self consciously intend to do that. It’s unavoidable in your present state. You assume the very non-contingency (deity) of your own logic that you deny to your creator. Either that or you have no reason to believe even in your own existence. If everything is contingent then nothing is certain which many unbelievers are willing to concede. However if true then even the notion of universal uncertainty is itself uncertain and off we go again.

No sir, there is in fact a triune God who is Himself the very definition of the one and the many. A plural unity, entirely non-contingent and the definer and definition of absolutely EVERYTHING. He lives in utterly comprehensive and contemporaneous absolute cognizance of ALL actual and possible objects of knowledge. Encompassing, but not limited to, as they are His creations, ALL actual and possible time and space. He has not and never will learn anything whatsoever in the sense of becoming aware of some previously unknown fact. He can’t (yes I did say that). It all depends ultimately on Him. He can and does, in snickering defiance of everything insolent fallen man thinks he knows, bring matter/energy into existence from absolutely nothing.

Hear King David son of Jessie:
139th Psalm:

[quote]1 O Lord, you have searched me and known me!
2 You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
you discern my thoughts from afar.
3 You search out my path and my lying down
and are acquainted with all my ways.
4 Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.
5 You hem me in, behind and before,
and lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high; I cannot attain it.
7 Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence? [/quote]All praise glory and honor be to Him who alone is God indeed.
[/quote]

I suggest you take a look at Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

874

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I suggest you take a look at Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.[/quote]

Who?

875

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I suggest you take a look at Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.[/quote]Why? I’m asking honestly.

876

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, look at what you just wrote. If you’re deducing an uncaused cause…it has to be uncaused. You’re starting with the assumption that it is uncaused, without providing any proof that it actually is uncaused.

Infinite regress isn’t logically impossible. It’s as logically possible as infinite progress. For all we know, eternity extends in both directions, or maybe it is just circular.

For starters, you are claiming god exists, and is uncaused. How can you prove such an existence without using the language of causation?

How do you even discuss causation in the absence of matter, energy, and time? How does causation even exist in that environment?[/quote]

Eternity if not a measure of time. Eternity is timeless. Eternal just “is”. No beginning, and no end. When I consider what I’ll call our “time trap”, I become more convinced the universe was just always here, in one form or the other, and always will be, neither being created nor destroyed, just changing.

This does not rule out God for me. [/quote]

Exactly. It’s hard for people to step outside our own experience and think of terms of timelessness. If the universe wasn’t created, it doesn’t invalidate the idea of a god, but it does invalidate the idea of a creator god.

877

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I suggest you take a look at Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.[/quote]

Who?[/quote]The present “pontiff”.

878

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s odd when I think of it. The CA is supposed to lead you to the conclusion of God, and it really has moved me in an entirely different direction and to conclude that; God does not exist or, God IS the universe, or “God” was in fact an alien visitor to early earth hence the common themes within early religion or, there was an Intelligent Designer not necessarily divine.

I just cannot accept a non-contingent being. It’s illogical to me.[/quote]

I don’t find a noncontingent being any less logical than a noncontingent universe. Both are theoretically possible, though parsimony makes the former less likely than the latter.

879

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Causality and time are not in the same class. Our perception of what time is and what it actually is may in fact be different than what it actually is. What we understand as time requires physical matter and requires it to move relative to either some other physical matter or through space which is defined by matter. Causality applies to non-physical as well the physical. It applies to matter as well as energy as well as time as well as morality, as well as methodology, etc. It happens despite our ability to perceive it. Our senses are actually incapable of discerning causal relationships absolutely. We can only infer them based on observation. That’s not the same as the deductive form. It really breaks down like a math problem.
If X and Y then Z, if not X, then not Z, if not Y, then not Z, BUT if not Z, you can still have X and Y. ← This is true no matter what. It’s true in space, its true in a multiverse, it’s true 20,000,000,000,000 billion years ago, or 20,000,000,000,000 billion years from now. You can add variables or remove down to two. It’s true under any circumstance, that’s why it’s deductive. It does not rely on circumstances to be true all you need is any kind of existence.

Basically, it’s true until proven false. While objector bring up possible scenarios, or what if’s that can cause contradiction, they have not yet brought compelling arguments that such scenarios actually exist in any realm.[/quote]

Pat, you seem to be all over the place here.
[/quote]
how?

Not even close. Causality does not require matter or it’s movement, it’s the opposite, matter and it’s movement require a cause.

What you perceive as something’s cause may be different that what is really the cause, but causation is still in play.

How about the conclusion of the Necessary Being? The Uncaused-causer? How about the ‘first’ caused ‘thing’? We can only know their existence by deduction, there is no other way as they cannot be perceived any other way.
There is no dependence on the physical by the metaphysical. Again, its the opposite. Everything physical that exists, depends on a metaphysical construct to be true and consistent. A box of meaningless parts cannot become a motorcycle with out a plan.

But I will play, so explain how morality is dependent on physical properties? Or methodology?

The analogy is not correct. You are analogizing an ad hoc empirical observation to a deductive argument; that simply does not work. You’d be better served by saying something like: “Just because we think 2+2=4 doesn’t mean it always will.” Of course the statement is patently false, but the analogy is at least correct.

If it were merely word play it would be easy enough to prove it false. It’s closer to math than it is language. Either the ‘equation’, aka, the premises are wrong, or the conclusion it draws is wrong. Mere word play is not deductively valid. Like I said, bring up objections to it and we can look at them in detail.

[quote]
The thing that I find most intriguing about your fervent defense of the CA, is that in my mind, the CA is not required for the divine to exist. If anything, the CA turns me away from the conclusion that there exists God. Whatever the answer, the potential illusion of causation does not get me there. [/quote]

No it is not ‘required’, only faith is. It just so happens to work.

880

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, look at what you just wrote. If you’re deducing an uncaused cause…it has to be uncaused. You’re starting with the assumption that it is uncaused, without providing any proof that it actually is uncaused.
[/quote]
No, the starting point is causation, it leads to the uncaused-causer by regression. It has to be that way.
What proof do you demand? What’s the proof that ‘2+2=4’? I cannot exactly put said Necessary Being in a beaker and mix it with an acid to see what happens. It goes beyond the realm of empiricism. It’s either an uncaused-causer or it’s nothing, those are the two choices for a conclusion. Your other choice is to disprove causation.

Uh, regresses can’t be circular or they are false by definition. You cannot regress and end where you started. That’s the point.

[quote]
For starters, you are claiming god exists, and is uncaused. How can you prove such an existence without using the language of causation?

How do you even discuss causation in the absence of matter, energy, and time? How does causation even exist in that environment?[/quote]

I can answer both, but you have to answer my question first. It’s not fair to throw question after question at me, but ignore the ones I ask you. That’s a Tirib, move.