Bible Contradictions 2.0

[pat]

[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]

Hmmm, interesting, Tirib. You believe, therefore that God was created by something else, that he is contingent? So how can God be brought forth and Lord over all creation if he himself were created? Did he get promoted or elected? 'Cause that’s what you just said.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.
[/quote]

So if the universe wasn’t created, how did it come to be? The answer is not, “just is”, I need more substance than that. How is it, just is?

[pat]

[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]

Because a gay person said something positive about my faith, it’s automatically invalid? I disagree in that I have a long way to go in my faith journey and I am far from good much less perfect.

This says much more about you than it does about me or forlife.
The truth is this you think what he says is invalid because he is less of a person in the eye’s of God than yourself. Same is true for me, you consider me less of a person, less in the eye’s of God than yourself and therefore I to am irrelevant, but maybe less so because I like chicks.

That’s why you ignore though questions, not because they are not valid, we just aren’t lofty enough in your eyes we think Westminster is full of it.
That’s why you rant and you do not discuss. That’s why you preach aimlessly as if it would make a hill of beans difference.

You’re an easy psychological read. You think we’re stupid, you think your better (because you think you’re elect) and you think that you can save us, when your own theology clearly states that you cannot nor can we be saved. We’ve have been already damned.

[pat]

[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]

“…that God never EVER violates the wills of His creatures in ordering all things to His own glory and by His providence.” ← This would completely invalidate predetermination. It is impossible, even in the realm of paradoxes for you to both be predetermined and have will. You cannot have it both ways.
So do you believe in predetermination or not?

[forlife]

[quote]pat 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.
[/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.

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.

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.[/quote]

Since when have I dodged your questions? I I missed anything, please point it out and I’ll be happy to respond.

First, you haven’t proven that causation is the starting point. You can only observe causation in our universe of matter, energy, and time but have no idea whether causation exists outside of that universe.

Second, an uncaused being is not the only possibility, even if we knew causation was the starting point. The thing itself, which you claim was caused, could in fact be uncaused. That is a real possibility, and can’t be dismissed in preference for the idea of an uncaused being.

My point on circularity is that for all you know, the universe could be a circular series of causes and effects, whereby a cause is ultimately its own effect. I realize this seems illogical, but it is no less logical than the idea of an uncaused cause, and my only point was that there are in fact other possibilities.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

Hmmm, interesting, Tirib. You believe, therefore that God was created by something else, that he is contingent? So how can God be brought forth and Lord over all creation if he himself were created? Did he get promoted or elected? 'Cause that’s what you just said.[/quote]

The thing that struck me about his god concept was the pettiness. You’d think a creator god of infinite power and benevolence would have better things to do than to snicker at the foolishness of the puppets that he created for his own pleasure. It reminds me of the old Greek gods.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.
[/quote]

So if the universe wasn’t created, how did it come to be? The answer is not, “just is”, I need more substance than that. How is it, just is?[/quote]

Why is “just is” acceptable for god, but not for the universe? Why can god be uncreated, while the universe can’t be uncreated?

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

“…that God never EVER violates the wills of His creatures in ordering all things to His own glory and by His providence.” ← This would completely invalidate predetermination. It is impossible, even in the realm of paradoxes for you to both be predetermined and have will. You cannot have it both ways.
So do you believe in predetermination or not? [/quote]

Exactly. Even in the face of a classic logical conflict, where both claims definitionally cannot be right, he consoles himself with the mantra that somehow it all makes sense to god.

Either we have the ability to willingly choose god, or we don’t. One option definitionally makes the other option impossible.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat 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.
[/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.

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.

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

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.[/quote]

Since when have I dodged your questions? I I missed anything, please point it out and I’ll be happy to respond.

Well you must have just missed it, I asked on the previous page the follow:

“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?”

First, you haven’t proven that causation is the starting point. You can only observe causation in our universe of matter, energy, and time but have no idea whether causation exists outside of that universe.

What is true, is true despite the constrictions of this universe or any other. Now to a point tirib actually made, somehow; God can change what the truth is or truth itself, because he is omnipotent. But as it stands right now without altered truth, this is the way it is.
The point being, that this is the truth as truth is defined. I.E. truth is, what is the case. Unless something can change ‘what is the case’ then it stands as is, unbound by anything except a cause and an effect. Metaphysical objects are also contingent and they are not of ‘this universe’.

Second, an uncaused being is not the only possibility, even if we knew causation was the starting point. The thing itself, which you claim was caused, could in fact be uncaused. That is a real possibility, and can’t be dismissed in preference for the idea of an uncaused being.

Ok, how?

[quote]
My point on circularity is that for all you know, the universe could be a circular series of causes and effects, whereby a cause is ultimately its own effect. I realize this seems illogical, but it is no less logical than the idea of an uncaused cause, and my only point was that there are in fact other possibilities.[/quote]

Sorry, but no, it violently violates logic. You can have an infinite circular series of events, but that is not regression. You can simplify, or further reduce those events in ways outside the series of events. Where did the events come from, why do they function cyclically?

[dnlcdstn]

[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]

I would on both accounts. Why there wasn’t/isn’t a book or guideline to follow and no way to communicate with him/her/it is beyond me. I don’t believe anything created man as we are today. I believe he/she/it created the laws of physics and such and we evolved from simple organisms.

The problem with bibles and other books of religion is they didn’t know they were walking on top of giant dinosaur bones. They didn’t plan for that. Also, man has evolved over time and again they didn’t know so the story is missing big chunks.

Again, this wait and see approach is not enough for me to believe in the God/Jesus story. I’m glad people do believe b/c if not there would be no fear of going to live in hell for eternity and killing and stealing would be much worse. If that keeps people in line then good.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

Hmmm, interesting, Tirib. You believe, therefore that God was created by something else, that he is contingent? So how can God be brought forth and Lord over all creation if he himself were created? Did he get promoted or elected? 'Cause that’s what you just said.[/quote]

The thing that struck me about his god concept was the pettiness. You’d think a creator god of infinite power and benevolence would have better things to do than to snicker at the foolishness of the puppets that he created for his own pleasure. It reminds me of the old Greek gods.[/quote]

Oh yeah, like…“Hmmm, ok, I am going to make pat, he is going to be religious and serve me. He is going to do my bidding on earth, but since I decided he’s not elect, after words I am going to cast him into the deepest recesses of Hell because I just want to” says the Lord…

Or “I am going to make forlife, he is going to raise a family and be conflicted. Then he’s going to leave the church and in the end throw him in to hell, because I feel like it”.

That’s the pettiness your referring too? Yeah, if I believed that about God, I would not even bother. Quite frankly I wouldn’t want to be associated with such a thing.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.
[/quote]

So if the universe wasn’t created, how did it come to be? The answer is not, “just is”, I need more substance than that. How is it, just is?[/quote]

Why is “just is” acceptable for god, but not for the universe? Why can god be uncreated, while the universe can’t be uncreated?
[/quote]

That’s not what it says, it says that said Necessary Being must be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not the Uncaused-cause, Prime mover, etc. It has to be that way or your not talking about the Uncaused-cause, you are talking about something else. If the Uncaused-cause is contigent, it’s not uncaused and therefore it’s not an uncaused-cause.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat 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.
[/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.

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.

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

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.[/quote]

Since when have I dodged your questions? I I missed anything, please point it out and I’ll be happy to respond.

Well you must have just missed it, I asked on the previous page the follow:

“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?”

First, you haven’t proven that causation is the starting point. You can only observe causation in our universe of matter, energy, and time but have no idea whether causation exists outside of that universe.

What is true, is true despite the constrictions of this universe or any other. Now to a point tirib actually made, somehow; God can change what the truth is or truth itself, because he is omnipotent. But as it stands right now without altered truth, this is the way it is.
The point being, that this is the truth as truth is defined. I.E. truth is, what is the case. Unless something can change ‘what is the case’ then it stands as is, unbound by anything except a cause and an effect. Metaphysical objects are also contingent and they are not of ‘this universe’.

Second, an uncaused being is not the only possibility, even if we knew causation was the starting point. The thing itself, which you claim was caused, could in fact be uncaused. That is a real possibility, and can’t be dismissed in preference for the idea of an uncaused being.

Ok, how?

[quote]
My point on circularity is that for all you know, the universe could be a circular series of causes and effects, whereby a cause is ultimately its own effect. I realize this seems illogical, but it is no less logical than the idea of an uncaused cause, and my only point was that there are in fact other possibilities.[/quote]

Sorry, but no, it violently violates logic. You can have an infinite circular series of events, but that is not regression. You can simplify, or further reduce those events in ways outside the series of events. Where did the events come from, why do they function cyclically?[/quote]

Pat, I did answer your question earlier. Or at least, I thought I did. I was trying to make the point rhetorically. You asked me to provide an example of something that is uncaused, and I pointed to your own idea of god. You believe god is uncaused, so clearly you believe something can exist outside the causal chain. You believe the laws of causation can in fact not apply, and indeed that this must be so. So there’s one example.

Another example: matter and energy. If they can’t be created in a closed system, it’s certainly possible they can’t be created in an open system.

I agree with you that what is true must be true. My point was that what is true in one set of circumstances may be untrue in another set of circumstances. Just because causality exists in a universe of matter, energy, and time doesn’t mean it must exist outside of matter, energy, and time.

How could matter and energy exist uncaused? In the same way a god can exist uncaused. It’s not axiomatic that a being is the only thing that can exist uncaused. The same could be true for matter and energy, and you can’t logically rule out that possibility.

I agree that circularity violently violates logic. So does the idea of an uncaused cause. I find one idea no less logical than the other.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

Hmmm, interesting, Tirib. You believe, therefore that God was created by something else, that he is contingent? So how can God be brought forth and Lord over all creation if he himself were created? Did he get promoted or elected? 'Cause that’s what you just said.[/quote]

The thing that struck me about his god concept was the pettiness. You’d think a creator god of infinite power and benevolence would have better things to do than to snicker at the foolishness of the puppets that he created for his own pleasure. It reminds me of the old Greek gods.[/quote]

Oh yeah, like…“Hmmm, ok, I am going to make pat, he is going to be religious and serve me. He is going to do my bidding on earth, but since I decided he’s not elect, after words I am going to cast him into the deepest recesses of Hell because I just want to” says the Lord…

Or “I am going to make forlife, he is going to raise a family and be conflicted. Then he’s going to leave the church and in the end throw him in to hell, because I feel like it”.

That’s the pettiness your referring too? Yeah, if I believed that about God, I would not even bother. Quite frankly I wouldn’t want to be associated with such a thing.[/quote]

Totally agree. I was referring to this anthropomorphic quote in particular:

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

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.
[/quote]

So if the universe wasn’t created, how did it come to be? The answer is not, “just is”, I need more substance than that. How is it, just is?[/quote]

Why is “just is” acceptable for god, but not for the universe? Why can god be uncreated, while the universe can’t be uncreated?
[/quote]

That’s not what it says, it says that said Necessary Being must be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not the Uncaused-cause, Prime mover, etc. It has to be that way or your not talking about the Uncaused-cause, you are talking about something else. If the Uncaused-cause is contigent, it’s not uncaused and therefore it’s not an uncaused-cause.[/quote]

I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.

What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.
[/quote]

So if the universe wasn’t created, how did it come to be? The answer is not, “just is”, I need more substance than that. How is it, just is?[/quote]

You said a mouthful right there. “I need”. That is the human condition. But you’re trying to fulfill that need from the perspective of a microbe. You’re using the logical constructs of a microbe. Now, I’m not saying that the CA is not a sound deductive argument - ASSUMING first that our understanding of causation is correct.

And alas, we come full circle to what we both already know. You believe causation is the key to this universe, and I maintain it is just as likely an illusion to a greater truth. I can’t prove it, any more than you can prove a first cause. But I can be guided by the problems with our current theories, not the least of which is time. Causation is inextricably tied to time. Causation itself demands that something preceded the other, came before, or was “caused” - all of which falls squarely upon our perception of time e.g. timeline.

Throw away time - and we are heading in that direction Pat, and your logical conclusions for causation fail. No beginning, no end, just change.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

Hmmm, interesting, Tirib. You believe, therefore that God was created by something else, that he is contingent? So how can God be brought forth and Lord over all creation if he himself were created? Did he get promoted or elected? 'Cause that’s what you just said.[/quote]

The thing that struck me about his god concept was the pettiness. You’d think a creator god of infinite power and benevolence would have better things to do than to snicker at the foolishness of the puppets that he created for his own pleasure. It reminds me of the old Greek gods.[/quote]

Oh yeah, like…“Hmmm, ok, I am going to make pat, he is going to be religious and serve me. He is going to do my bidding on earth, but since I decided he’s not elect, after words I am going to cast him into the deepest recesses of Hell because I just want to” says the Lord…

Or “I am going to make forlife, he is going to raise a family and be conflicted. Then he’s going to leave the church and in the end throw him in to hell, because I feel like it”.

That’s the pettiness your referring too? Yeah, if I believed that about God, I would not even bother. Quite frankly I wouldn’t want to be associated with such a thing.[/quote]

Wasn’t the God of the OT decidedly petty, vengeful, jealous, among other things? Is this not your God. Did He reform? Does God change? It’s quite an uneven transition set up by religion. It’s often been commented upon by scholars that the God of the OT and NT are nothing like, yet your faith claims them as one in the same (out of necessity of course, but not logic).

[Brother_Chris]

[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 current Pope, back when he was a Cardinal. It was a book that was originally published and sold out after he had done a seminar class about Christianity and the idea of faith and reason. It sold out within the first week or something.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

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

Because you would like it, he puts it in to word that make sense.

[pat]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

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

Because you would like it, he puts it in to word that make sense.[/quote]

No he wouldn’t he hates Catholics remember?