Bible Contradictions 2.0

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

[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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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 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.[/quote]

These quote / replies get quickly unwieldy. Great dialogue, but not built for the constraints of the internet. I took a stab at replying but it’s too jumbled and I’m not quoting your quote/reply with more quote/reply. I do understand your arguments. I do not agree with them. And we’ve got too many concepts at once in play to have a logical answer and reply thread. If anything, I’m more firm in my skepticism for the CA and I have you to thank for challenging me and causing me to do some more reading.

[pat]

[quote]TheBodyGuard 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]

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.
[/quote]
This is not a reference to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. It was a simple request to elaborate on how something just is…Needing information for an argument would be prudent.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

No, again. Causation exists because things exist. It can exist in and out of this universe. Causation is not inextricably linked with time, at all. I thought we went over and over and over why it’s not? Where did you lose track? Causation based on necessity and contingency are time independent. There is no need to causes to precede their effects though that’s the way we see it in our world. Causes simply must necessitate their effects, which is not the same thing.

If causation is illusory, give me an argument that proves that point.

If you throw away time, you still have causality. You have to get rid of existence itself to get rid of causality.

[pat]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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).[/quote]

He definitely had an edge.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

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.
[/quote]

Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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.
[/quote]

Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]

When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.

The identical argument can be made here. Energy, space, and movement are just attributes of matter and energy that follow their nature, rather than being contingent on them…because matter and energy are Uncaused.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard 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]

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.
[/quote]
This is not a reference to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. It was a simple request to elaborate on how something just is…Needing information for an argument would be prudent.

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. [/quote]

No, again. Causation exists because things exist. It can exist in and out of this universe. Causation is not inextricably linked with time, at all. I thought we went over and over and over why it’s not? Where did you lose track? Causation based on necessity and contingency are time independent. There is no need to causes to precede their effects though that’s the way we see it in our world. Causes simply must necessitate their effects, which is not the same thing.

If causation is illusory, give me an argument that proves that point.

If you throw away time, you still have causality. You have to get rid of existence itself to get rid of causality.

I think you’re wrong. In an eternal universe, without time, there is no first cause. There is causation within your slice of experience and perception, but the universe is just in a constant state of change.

Give an example of causation existing “in and out of the universe”

Your statement that “causation exists because things exist” is circular and ignores the eternity argument, which is viable. There is no more evidence for first cause than there is for eternity.

Give me a provable (other than a logical and philosophical exercise based on incomplete information) example of causation being outside of time.

I provided the argument that supports causation as illusory - eternity. No beginning, no end. Causation existing only in your slice of experience.

And you do not have to get rid of existence itself to get rid of causality. You only discard our paradigm. It’s like the 2d character saying that you have to get rid of the circle to have the sphere.

[TheBodyGuard]

Pat, you’re arguing strenuously that no thing is uncaused, but insist that God is uncaused. You’re making a heckuva case for the non-existence of God, in my humble opinion. I respect your faith, but I think the CA is a terrible means to support it. It’s logical, based on incomplete assumptions about causation and the universe that are undermined by emerging theories. And it may always stand to be logical, based on the incomplete. I doubt very much our technology will unlock these questions any time soon. We’ll do things like we’re doing now, like removing time from an equation and finding that it then fits nicely with another equation that it should have fit prior or, we will discover a few more particles, but at the end of the day, we will be trying to measure and observe elements of the universe that are firmly beyond our experience.

It’s akin to attempting to measure 3 dimensions with a 2 dimensional tool.

[Tiribulus]

[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]Somebody help with this man. I BEG OF THEE!!! Somebody read what I said, especially the emphasized parts, and my friend Pat’s response and enlighten me on what I’m missing in my communication skills. I tried to recruit his homeboy, my dear Christopher, but he has refused to help.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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.
[/quote]

Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]

When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.

[quote]
The identical argument can be made here. Energy, space, and movement are just attributes of matter and energy that follow their nature, rather than being contingent on them…because matter and energy are Uncaused.[/quote]

Incorrect, movement, energy and that which composes something isn’t dependent on it’s result. They can live just fine with out the result.

[pat]

[quote]Tiribulus 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]Somebody help with this man. I BEG OF THEE!!! Somebody read what I said, especially the emphasized parts, and my friend Pat’s response and enlighten me on what I’m missing in my communication skills. I tried to recruit his homeboy, my dear Christopher, but he has refused to help.
[/quote]

I read what your said. It’s contradictory and quite frankly lacks any thought or effort what so ever. You managed to agree and disagree with the same statement all at the same time. Sounds like some one programed rather than educated quite frankly…

Hey don’t blame me, I was predestined to do this exact thing…

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

Incorrect, movement, energy and that which composes something isn’t dependent on it’s result. They can live just fine with out the result.
[/quote]

This is circular. You’re claiming that matter does not exist uncaused. If it is in fact uncaused, it cannot exist without its result. No result = no causation.

If you’re going to argue a first cause, then everything that happened after that is your walkway back to your theoretical first cause.

You appear to have just made the argument against causation and for eternity - Movement, energy and that which composers something can live (exist) just fine with out the result. No “result”, no “cause”.

[pat]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Pat, you’re arguing strenuously that no thing is uncaused, but insist that God is uncaused. You’re making a heckuva case for the non-existence of God, in my humble opinion. I respect your faith, but I think the CA is a terrible means to support it. It’s logical, based on incomplete assumptions about causation and the universe that are undermined by emerging theories. And it may always stand to be logical, based on the incomplete. I doubt very much our technology will unlock these questions any time soon. We’ll do things like we’re doing now, like removing time from an equation and finding that it then fits nicely with another equation that it should have fit prior or, we will discover a few more particles, but at the end of the day, we will be trying to measure and observe elements of the universe that are firmly beyond our experience.

It’s akin to attempting to measure 3 dimensions with a 2 dimensional tool. [/quote]

“You’re making a heckuva case for the non-existence of God” ← Then you do not understand the argument. How in the hell can you get an argument against the existence of God from an argument for it?

There aren’t assumptions. There’s three moving parts. Causation, regression and conclusion, I really don’t think you thinking this through based on what you said. You can’t be. I sense your still working this through by way of the scientific method within the realm of the known universe. It goes beyond that.

[forbes]

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I will get back to you either later tonight (unlikely though) or tomorrow. Either way you will get a response from me

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Pat, you’re arguing strenuously that no thing is uncaused, but insist that God is uncaused. You’re making a heckuva case for the non-existence of God, in my humble opinion. I respect your faith, but I think the CA is a terrible means to support it. It’s logical, based on incomplete assumptions about causation and the universe that are undermined by emerging theories. And it may always stand to be logical, based on the incomplete. I doubt very much our technology will unlock these questions any time soon. We’ll do things like we’re doing now, like removing time from an equation and finding that it then fits nicely with another equation that it should have fit prior or, we will discover a few more particles, but at the end of the day, we will be trying to measure and observe elements of the universe that are firmly beyond our experience.

It’s akin to attempting to measure 3 dimensions with a 2 dimensional tool. [/quote]

“You’re making a heckuva case for the non-existence of God” ← Then you do not understand the argument. How in the hell can you get an argument against the existence of God from an argument for it?

There aren’t assumptions. There’s three moving parts. Causation, regression and conclusion, I really don’t think you thinking this through based on what you said. You can’t be. I sense your still working this through by way of the scientific method within the realm of the known universe. It goes beyond that. [/quote]

My responses may be awkward. Admitted.

Let’s take this as you have stated it.

Causation: For the CA to be correct, causation need be the rule of the universe. We do know of things within our observation that appear to be uncaused and I have stated those prior, radioactive decay being one.

Regression: “Regression” is impossible unless you travel back on the time line. I asked you before, and I’ll ask it again; give me an example of causation absent time. The CA is inextricably linked to the timeline. It is entirely possible the “timeline” is a human construct only. Remove time, you have no regress. Remove time, you have no causation. You just are left with “is”.

Your conclusion is based on an unknown, an assumption at best (causation) based upon our experience. There is nothing you can write or postulate that is not in some way linked to our experience. Back to the 2d character. We both know the sphere exists because we can see and touch it. The 2d character will never know of the sphere. And his language and logical constructs will always be of the circle.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I read what you said >>>[/quote]I know. That’s what scares me[quote]pat wrote:<<< It’s contradictory >>>.[/quote]How so? [quote]pat wrote:<<< and quite frankly lacks any thought or effort what so ever. >>>[/quote]I’ll try harder.[quote]pat wrote:<<< You managed to agree and disagree with the same statement all at the same time. >>>[/quote]See top above^ [quote]pat wrote:Sounds like some one programed rather than educated quite frankly…[/quote]I’ve never made any claims about my education.[quote]pat wrote:<<< Hey don’t blame me, I was predestined to do this exact thing…[/quote]You’re better than this whole post Pat, but hatred has blinded you.

[pat]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Incorrect, movement, energy and that which composes something isn’t dependent on it’s result. They can live just fine with out the result.
[/quote]

This is circular. You’re claiming that matter does not exist uncaused. If it is in fact uncaused, it cannot exist without its result. No result = no causation.
[/quote]
I argued no such thing. I never said it cannot exist with out it’s result. I said it doesn’t exist uncaused and stated exactly why. We don’t even have to go into deduction to know that it was brought about, that it is caused.
And no, it’s not circular. No begging the question here.

If you’re going to argue a first cause, then everything that happened after that is your walkway back to your theoretical first cause.

First Cause is just a name, it’s not intended to indicate temporal order. Non-contingent being, Necessary Being, Uncaused-cause, all refer to the same thing.

[quote]
You appear to have just made the argument against causation and for eternity - Movement, energy and that which composers something can live (exist) just fine with out the result. No “result”, no “cause”. [/quote]

The ‘stuff’ that matter and energy are made of can and does exist without having to be what much of it has become. Doesn’t mean it cannot, but it doesn’t mean it has to either. That does not remove causation, don’t see where you are getting that.

[pat]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I read what you said >>>[/quote]I know. That’s what scares me[quote]pat wrote:<<< It’s contradictory >>>.[/quote]How so? [quote]pat wrote:<<< and quite frankly lacks any thought or effort what so ever. >>>[/quote]I’ll try harder.[quote]pat wrote:<<< You managed to agree and disagree with the same statement all at the same time. >>>[/quote]See top above^ [quote]pat wrote:Sounds like some one programed rather than educated quite frankly…[/quote]I’ve never made any claims about my education.[quote]pat wrote:<<< Hey don’t blame me, I was predestined to do this exact thing…[/quote]You’re better than this whole post Pat, but hatred has blinded you.
[/quote]

You managed to say that God isn’t the Uncaused-causer, he’s is God present in the trinity who created all things. That’s like saying “That’s not a car! It’s an automobile.”

I am not the one with hate issues. You hate my faith therefore you hate me. You’ve made that plenty clear. Plus, you do not argue honestly. You pick and choose and argue against that which you think you have control over, but you don’t. You avoid hard questions, yes these atheists or agnostics you have condemned to hell, at least argue honestly and answer questions honsetly with out some retarded diatribe.
And if you believe in predestination, then you must necessarily believe that I have no control or will. So ever letter I type, was predetermined by God. Don’t blame me, Calvin made that claim.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Incorrect, movement, energy and that which composes something isn’t dependent on it’s result. They can live just fine with out the result.
[/quote]

This is circular. You’re claiming that matter does not exist uncaused. If it is in fact uncaused, it cannot exist without its result. No result = no causation.
[/quote]
I argued no such thing. I never said it cannot exist with out it’s result. I said it doesn’t exist uncaused and stated exactly why. We don’t even have to go into deduction to know that it was brought about, that it is caused.
And no, it’s not circular. No begging the question here.

If you’re going to argue a first cause, then everything that happened after that is your walkway back to your theoretical first cause.

First Cause is just a name, it’s not intended to indicate temporal order. Non-contingent being, Necessary Being, Uncaused-cause, all refer to the same thing.

You appear to have just made the argument against causation and for eternity - Movement, energy and that which composers something can live (exist) just fine with out the result. No “result”, no “cause”. [/quote]

The ‘stuff’ that matter and energy are made of can and does exist without having to be what much of it has become. Doesn’t mean it cannot, but it doesn’t mean it has to either. That does not remove causation, don’t see where you are getting that.

“First cause” by nature and definition is necessarily a temporal construct. It implies a beginning. A beginning is temporal.

Can I at least get you to admit that in an eternal universe, causation is moot except within your discrete experience of a thing?

And, causation is temporal. It implies a cause and effect, the effect proceeding after the cause on our timeline. If you disagree, provide an example of causation where the effect precedes the cause or occurs outside of time.

[pat]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Pat, you’re arguing strenuously that no thing is uncaused, but insist that God is uncaused. You’re making a heckuva case for the non-existence of God, in my humble opinion. I respect your faith, but I think the CA is a terrible means to support it. It’s logical, based on incomplete assumptions about causation and the universe that are undermined by emerging theories. And it may always stand to be logical, based on the incomplete. I doubt very much our technology will unlock these questions any time soon. We’ll do things like we’re doing now, like removing time from an equation and finding that it then fits nicely with another equation that it should have fit prior or, we will discover a few more particles, but at the end of the day, we will be trying to measure and observe elements of the universe that are firmly beyond our experience.

It’s akin to attempting to measure 3 dimensions with a 2 dimensional tool. [/quote]

“You’re making a heckuva case for the non-existence of God” ← Then you do not understand the argument. How in the hell can you get an argument against the existence of God from an argument for it?

There aren’t assumptions. There’s three moving parts. Causation, regression and conclusion, I really don’t think you thinking this through based on what you said. You can’t be. I sense your still working this through by way of the scientific method within the realm of the known universe. It goes beyond that. [/quote]

My responses may be awkward. Admitted.

Let’s take this as you have stated it.

Causation: For the CA to be correct, causation need be the rule of the universe. We do know of things within our observation that appear to be uncaused and I have stated those prior, radioactive decay being one.
[/quote]
It’s not understood, doesn’t mean random. Randomness in the realm of science only indicates a lack of predictability, that doesn’t mean uncaused. We just don’t know enough about it’s behavior to make a prediction. You cannot have radioactive decay without something radioactive, right?

Regression: “Regression” is impossible unless you travel back on the time line. I asked you before, and I’ll ask it again; give me an example of causation absent time. The CA is inextricably linked to the timeline. It is entirely possible the “timeline” is a human construct only. Remove time, you have no regress. Remove time, you have no causation. You just are left with “is”.

That’s only temporal regression, which is a kind, but not the only kind. You can have a property regression, you can have a reduction regression, dependency regression, etc. It doesn’t have to follow a timeline. To say, “My car needs it’s engine to move” isn’t a temporal order. It’s an order of requirement. Please don’t read too much into the example.

[quote]
Your conclusion is based on an unknown, an assumption at best (causation) based upon our experience. There is nothing you can write or postulate that is not in some way linked to our experience. Back to the 2d character. We both know the sphere exists because we can see and touch it. The 2d character will never know of the sphere. And his language and logical constructs will always be of the circle. [/quote]

You just said the conclusion is an unknown and then said it’s a function of our experience? It’s not, the logical problem itself drew the conclusion. It’s not an assumption; it is a solution to a problem. There is only one right answer to that problem, the Uncaused-cause is it.

[pat]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Incorrect, movement, energy and that which composes something isn’t dependent on it’s result. They can live just fine with out the result.
[/quote]

This is circular. You’re claiming that matter does not exist uncaused. If it is in fact uncaused, it cannot exist without its result. No result = no causation.
[/quote]
I argued no such thing. I never said it cannot exist with out it’s result. I said it doesn’t exist uncaused and stated exactly why. We don’t even have to go into deduction to know that it was brought about, that it is caused.
And no, it’s not circular. No begging the question here.

If you’re going to argue a first cause, then everything that happened after that is your walkway back to your theoretical first cause.

First Cause is just a name, it’s not intended to indicate temporal order. Non-contingent being, Necessary Being, Uncaused-cause, all refer to the same thing.

You appear to have just made the argument against causation and for eternity - Movement, energy and that which composers something can live (exist) just fine with out the result. No “result”, no “cause”. [/quote]

The ‘stuff’ that matter and energy are made of can and does exist without having to be what much of it has become. Doesn’t mean it cannot, but it doesn’t mean it has to either. That does not remove causation, don’t see where you are getting that.

“First cause” by nature and definition is necessarily a temporal construct. It implies a beginning. A beginning is temporal.

Can I at least get you to admit that in an eternal universe, causation is moot except within your discrete experience of a thing?

[quote]
Hell no. How would it be moot? Fine first cause indicates temporal order, so let’s go with uncaused-cause, that does not.

[quote]
And, causation is temporal. It implies a cause and effect, the effect proceeding after the cause on our timeline. If you disagree, provide an example of causation where the effect precedes the cause or occurs outside of time.[/quote]

That was debunked about 1500 years ago. Don’t take my word for it, look it up.