Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The cosmological argument allows you to look as far and as deep as you want, you simply cannot invalidate it. You have to disprove causation. The necessary being is necessary because all that exists depends on it. [/quote]

And you know all that exists? How about all that exists in Heaven? Do the same rules of causation apply there?

Doesn’t saying “god exists and is uncaused” disprove causation? [/quote]

If I intimated that, it was error. The argument doesn’t require you know everything, if you did, it’d be handy, but you don’t need to fill in every blank to know it’s true. Very much like an algebraic expression, even with variables, the statement is true. [/quote]

It does, though. You have to account for everything in this universe, as well as heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo, etc.

82

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The cosmological argument allows you to look as far and as deep as you want, you simply cannot invalidate it. You have to disprove causation. The necessary being is necessary because all that exists depends on it. [/quote]

And you know all that exists? How about all that exists in Heaven? Do the same rules of causation apply there?

Doesn’t saying “god exists and is uncaused” disprove causation? [/quote]

If I intimated that, it was error. The argument doesn’t require you know everything, if you did, it’d be handy, but you don’t need to fill in every blank to know it’s true. Very much like an algebraic expression, even with variables, the statement is true. [/quote]

It does, though. You have to account for everything in this universe, as well as heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo, etc.

[/quote]

Actually the your job is easy, find one thing that is not caused and isn’t God himself (aka Uncaused-cause, prime mover, etc) then you invalidate the whole argument. It takes only one, thing. You find it, I will cast it aside.

It accounts for everything, but it doesn’t require I know it all. What is true, is true whether anybody knows it or not.

83

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The cosmological argument allows you to look as far and as deep as you want, you simply cannot invalidate it. You have to disprove causation. The necessary being is necessary because all that exists depends on it. [/quote]

And you know all that exists? How about all that exists in Heaven? Do the same rules of causation apply there?

Doesn’t saying “god exists and is uncaused” disprove causation? [/quote]

If I intimated that, it was error. The argument doesn’t require you know everything, if you did, it’d be handy, but you don’t need to fill in every blank to know it’s true. Very much like an algebraic expression, even with variables, the statement is true. [/quote]

It does, though. You have to account for everything in this universe, as well as heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo, etc.

[/quote]

Actually the your job is easy, find one thing that is not caused and isn’t God himself (aka Uncaused-cause, prime mover, etc) then you invalidate the whole argument. It takes only one, thing. You find it, I will cast it aside.

It accounts for everything, but it doesn’t require I know it all. What is true, is true whether anybody knows it or not.[/quote]

Prove that God is uncaused.

84

YEAH!!! Prove it

85

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The cosmological argument allows you to look as far and as deep as you want, you simply cannot invalidate it. You have to disprove causation. The necessary being is necessary because all that exists depends on it. [/quote]

And you know all that exists? How about all that exists in Heaven? Do the same rules of causation apply there?

Doesn’t saying “god exists and is uncaused” disprove causation? [/quote]

If I intimated that, it was error. The argument doesn’t require you know everything, if you did, it’d be handy, but you don’t need to fill in every blank to know it’s true. Very much like an algebraic expression, even with variables, the statement is true. [/quote]

It does, though. You have to account for everything in this universe, as well as heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo, etc.

[/quote]

Actually the your job is easy, find one thing that is not caused and isn’t God himself (aka Uncaused-cause, prime mover, etc) then you invalidate the whole argument. It takes only one, thing. You find it, I will cast it aside.

It accounts for everything, but it doesn’t require I know it all. What is true, is true whether anybody knows it or not.[/quote]

Prove that God is uncaused.[/quote]

By definition he has to be, otherwise he is not God, that which created him would be. You find me something uncaused, I will show you God.

86

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< By definition he has to be, otherwise he is not God, that which created him would be. You find me something uncaused, I will show you God.[/quote]Honestly Pat, this has nothing directly to do with Catholicism at all, but by WHO’S definition? I see his noose tightening around your neck.

87

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< By definition he has to be, otherwise he is not God, that which created him would be. You find me something uncaused, I will show you God.[/quote]Honestly Pat, this has nothing directly to do with Catholicism at all, but by WHO’S definition? I see his noose tightening around your neck.
[/quote]

So? That’s not the discussion. God has to exist first before the topic of religion can even be discussed. Religion is completely pointless and stupid with out God.

Second, it’s not a ‘who’s’ definition. The argument requires the conclusion. Nobody made it up, it is what it is. If you want to try and disprove causation and cosmology go nuts. I didn’t make it up, Aristotle’s discovered it and it’s been analyzed reworked, argued for and against for over two millennia. The Uncaused-cause, Prime Mover, necessary being, etc. what ever you want to call is the only solution to the origin of the causal chain. And it must be because to disassemble causation, you have to regress, to regress you have to have a starting point because at the end of the regress you have either something or nothing. Since nothing is fallacy, and infinite regress is also a fallacy you have only one solution to the problem.
Further it doesn’t matter where, how or from what you start the regress, it always ends in the same place. If you don’t believe me, try it and see. It’s an exercise you can do in the comfort of you own home. This is why it’s not a ‘gap’ argument and why the initial causer must be uncaused. Anything less leaves the problem unsolved, the uncaused-cause solves it, and the argument itslef, not man, necessitates this as true. It’s actually so simple, it’s mind boggling.

As far as Catholicism is concerned, St. Aquinas was a great theologian, but as much if not more a great philosopher. He postulated the contingency clause which removed the concept of time. So basically Aquinas ripped off Aristotle, and is kept in the annals of Christian history. So yes, it is a Catholic argument as well.

What I have no interest in doing is going to a guy like Cap, and saying “Hey I know you don’t believe, but you should try God, he’s really, really, really, really, awesome.” He’s just not that dumb. Further, he claims, and I have no reason to doubt him, that he did “go to the source” and felt unanswered or unsatisfied.
Besides, I am not trying to convert him, save him,or make him anything we are having a civil discourse. I provide arguments and he counters and I counter back. Hopefully we both know more from it. You know what he does not do? He does not insult me or my faith.

Philosophical truths are unbiased and as ‘concrete’ as you can get, which is why I use them. Nothing violates philosophical truths; if it does, then it wasn’t truth.
I am not afraid of truth. The search for truth provides wisdom, even if you don’t find what you are looking for. I also don’t hide behind the bible. Truth is truth whether it’s in the bible or not.

88

[quote]pat wrote:

Look it up, it is a paradox, you cannot foreknow and have choice to do otherwise. It’s simply impossible.[/quote]

You’re talking about something different now. I could see how it might be paradoxical to foreknow your own fate, yet have free will to change that fate. However, I’m talking about a third party with foreknowledge, who doesn’t interact with your life based on that knowledge. In that case, it’s impossible for the knowledge to have any impact on your choices. You will make the identical choices, whether this third party knows it or not. The foreknowledge is irrelevant.

Think about it this way. Every choice you will make for the rest of your life could be cataloged after you die. Let’s call it the Book of Pat’s Choices. If I were able to peek at that book right now, would it change the book in any way? Obviously not. If I exist outside of time and can read the book, that doesn’t mean I have the ability to change it. For someone outside of time, that book already exists; you just don’t know what it contains.

89

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Absolute theo-centric statements govern non absolute anthro-centric statements every time. This is what I’m talkin about. When there arises an apparent conflict between what God says about Himself. I.E. He has mercy on who He pleases and hardens who He pleases even pre answering the insolent objection of His arrogant creation with “who are you oh man who answers back to God”?

Once we have statements like that (and there’s plenty more) those CANNOT be brought into subjection to statements declaring the nature of man without exalting man over God which is exactly what is being predictably done here by the usual suspects. It’s exactly as it should be. Forlife, if it’s puppetry you fear don’t look now as you are dancing hand in hand with Pat to God’s divine tune of providence all the while proclaiming your autonomy.

You’re the one who calls it puppetry. God simply asks you who you think you are to answer back to him. Repent, worship your creator and live.[/quote]

Not when those absolute theo-centric statements are taken out of context from the crystal clear message of the bible. What, do you think Jesus was faking it when he wept over Jerusalem’s unwillingness to accept him? If it had been his will for them to be damned, why would he weep? And why would he say the reason they are damned is because they would not choose to accept him? The answer is staring you in the face, but you’re blinded by Calvin’s twisted philosophy.

Peter warned that people would misinterpret Paul’s words to their own destruction, and that is exactly what you’re doing.

God is the Father of All (Ephesians 4:1), not the Puppetmaster of All.

90

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Look it up, it is a paradox, you cannot foreknow and have choice to do otherwise. It’s simply impossible.[/quote]

You’re talking about something different now. I could see how it might be paradoxical to foreknow your own fate, yet have free will to change that fate. However, I’m talking about a third party with foreknowledge, who doesn’t interact with your life based on that knowledge. In that case, it’s impossible for the knowledge to have any impact on your choices. You will make the identical choices, whether this third party knows it or not. The foreknowledge is irrelevant.

Think about it this way. Every choice you will make for the rest of your life could be cataloged after you die. Let’s call it the Book of Pat’s Choices. If I were able to peek at that book right now, would it change the book in any way? Obviously not. If I exist outside of time and can read the book, that doesn’t mean I have the ability to change it. For someone outside of time, that book already exists; you just don’t know what it contains.
[/quote]

But if you are outside of time, everything happens simultaneously therefore, you cannot have foreknowledge, just knowledge. Outside of time there is no before.

Now a word about paradoxes…We know paradoxes exist and yet we still manage to function. Which means one of two things, we don’t know everything about the supposed paradoxical state and therefore it’s not really one. Or there is room for paradoxs to exist, but why and how? That’s the question.

91

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The unmoved-mover[/quote]

[/quote]

The universe can’t move itself, we already established this. Even if the universe was eternal (which it is not it is only 13.5 billion years), it would have slowed down already.[/quote]

It may have been 13.5 billion years since the latest expansion, but that doesn’t mean matter and energy were magically created 13.5 billion years ago. Gravity causes movement, would you consider that to be the “universe moving itself”?[/quote]

Gravity weakens. So, eventually it would slow to a stand still.[/quote]

I was only using gravity as an example of a natural force that moves objects, without requiring intelligence to do so. We don’t fully understand how the natural laws of the universe work, but they don’t require intelligence or intent in order to work.

92

[quote]pat wrote:<<< God has to exist first before the topic of religion can even be discussed. >>>[/quote]Pressed for time, but this was enough for now. Very good Pat. God has to exist before ANY topic can be discussed but you got a drop of Romans 1 blood on your clothes with this statement. Be clear that I am not being sarcastic with you at the moment. Carry on. I’ll try not to stick my nose in too much.

93

Pat, you can’t logically argue that everything must be caused on one hand, only to violate that very principle by stating that an uncaused cause exists. The very idea of an uncaused cause contradicts the argument that everything has a cause. Therefore, it is a logically false argument.

Now, if you want to argue that almost everything has a cause that’s fine. But then you must admit that you don’t know what has a cause and what doesn’t. As I’ve argued, it’s perfectly possible that matter and energy have always existed. You can’t prove they have a cause. In fact, the idea that something can be created out of nothing violates everything we know about the laws of conservation.

94

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Look it up, it is a paradox, you cannot foreknow and have choice to do otherwise. It’s simply impossible.[/quote]

You’re talking about something different now. I could see how it might be paradoxical to foreknow your own fate, yet have free will to change that fate. However, I’m talking about a third party with foreknowledge, who doesn’t interact with your life based on that knowledge. In that case, it’s impossible for the knowledge to have any impact on your choices. You will make the identical choices, whether this third party knows it or not. The foreknowledge is irrelevant.

Think about it this way. Every choice you will make for the rest of your life could be cataloged after you die. Let’s call it the Book of Pat’s Choices. If I were able to peek at that book right now, would it change the book in any way? Obviously not. If I exist outside of time and can read the book, that doesn’t mean I have the ability to change it. For someone outside of time, that book already exists; you just don’t know what it contains.
[/quote]

But if you are outside of time, everything happens simultaneously therefore, you cannot have foreknowledge, just knowledge. Outside of time there is no before.

Now a word about paradoxes…We know paradoxes exist and yet we still manage to function. Which means one of two things, we don’t know everything about the supposed paradoxical state and therefore it’s not really one. Or there is room for paradoxs to exist, but why and how? That’s the question.[/quote]

Depends on the perceiver. For someone who is time bound, it is foreknowledge. For someone existing outside of time, it is simply knowledge. Regardless what you call it, the knowledge doesn’t in any way restrict free will.

Do you believe paradoxes exist? I’m not sure what my opinion is on that. I know apparent paradoxes exist, but maybe that is only because we don’t have all the facts.

95

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Wanna tell me what particular physical mechanism of antiquity that is working out our salvation is? >>>[/quote]Wanna tell me what casting lots has to do with working out your salvation? I asked you what it means that the most allegedly random practices of men are decided by God every time and you respond with this? I honestly don’t understand.
[/quote]

I don’t understand how you ignore scripture when it says workout your own salvation.

See you don’t even understand the term separated brother. You only have partial truth, Tirib.

[quote][quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< and you treat me like a slave of the Devil to be sold off (I remember a story about that some where in the Bible) and spat on. >>>[/quote]What is it with you man? How can you say something like this? I have told you I want you as my brother.
[/quote]

Because you call me a pagan, a whore, the anti-christ, self-worshiper, &c. Am I supposed to believe that you want me to be your brother?

96

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Absolute theo-centric statements govern non absolute anthro-centric statements every time. This is what I’m talkin about. When there arises an apparent conflict between what God says about Himself. I.E. He has mercy on who He pleases and hardens who He pleases even pre answering the insolent objection of His arrogant creation with “who are you oh man who answers back to God”?

Once we have statements like that (and there’s plenty more) those CANNOT be brought into subjection to statements declaring the nature of man without exalting man over God which is exactly what is being predictably done here by the usual suspects. It’s exactly as it should be. Forlife, if it’s puppetry you fear don’t look now as you are dancing hand in hand with Pat to God’s divine tune of providence all the while proclaiming your autonomy.
You’re the one who calls it puppetry. God simply asks you who you think you are to answer back to him. Repent, worship your creator and live.[/quote]Not when those absolute theo-centric statements are taken out of context from the crystal clear message of the bible. >>>[/quote]Those absolute theo-centric statements ARE the crystal clear message of the bible. Everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, derives from, revolves around and is defined by and in the God revealed in those absolute theo-centric statements. Including you and I. ESPECIALLY you and I. Ohhhh how the Father of lights did use my dear brother Cornelius Van Til to brand autonomous man for who and what he is. I read these posts here and my jaw just hangs in awe of how the Lord can use a farm boy from Holland to turn the blinding light of His Word square in the face of insolent self enlightened modern man.

You are serving a real purpose here dude. You just wielded the rusty dull blade of your fallen intellect in an attempt to hack the “crystal clear message of the bible” free from He who is Himself that crystal clear message. Observe, all who read this thread. A Godsend of an object lesson unsolicited and bright as the midday sun. I am being serious as a heart attack.

97

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< By definition he has to be, otherwise he is not God, that which created him would be. You find me something uncaused, I will show you God.[/quote]Honestly Pat, this has nothing directly to do with Catholicism at all, but by WHO’S definition? I see his noose tightening around your neck.
[/quote]

So? That’s not the discussion. God has to exist first before the topic of religion can even be discussed. Religion is completely pointless and stupid with out God.

Second, it’s not a ‘who’s’ definition. The argument requires the conclusion. Nobody made it up, it is what it is. If you want to try and disprove causation and cosmology go nuts. I didn’t make it up, Aristotle’s discovered it and it’s been analyzed reworked, argued for and against for over two millennia. The Uncaused-cause, Prime Mover, necessary being, etc. what ever you want to call is the only solution to the origin of the causal chain. And it must be because to disassemble causation, you have to regress, to regress you have to have a starting point because at the end of the regress you have either something or nothing. Since nothing is fallacy, and infinite regress is also a fallacy you have only one solution to the problem.
Further it doesn’t matter where, how or from what you start the regress, it always ends in the same place. If you don’t believe me, try it and see. It’s an exercise you can do in the comfort of you own home. This is why it’s not a ‘gap’ argument and why the initial causer must be uncaused. Anything less leaves the problem unsolved, the uncaused-cause solves it, and the argument itslef, not man, necessitates this as true. It’s actually so simple, it’s mind boggling.

As far as Catholicism is concerned, St. Aquinas was a great theologian, but as much if not more a great philosopher. He postulated the contingency clause which removed the concept of time. So basically Aquinas ripped off Aristotle, and is kept in the annals of Christian history. So yes, it is a Catholic argument as well.

What I have no interest in doing is going to a guy like Cap, and saying “Hey I know you don’t believe, but you should try God, he’s really, really, really, really, awesome.” He’s just not that dumb. Further, he claims, and I have no reason to doubt him, that he did “go to the source” and felt unanswered or unsatisfied.
Besides, I am not trying to convert him, save him,or make him anything we are having a civil discourse. I provide arguments and he counters and I counter back. Hopefully we both know more from it. You know what he does not do? He does not insult me or my faith.

Philosophical truths are unbiased and as ‘concrete’ as you can get, which is why I use them. Nothing violates philosophical truths; if it does, then it wasn’t truth.
I am not afraid of truth. The search for truth provides wisdom, even if you don’t find what you are looking for. I also don’t hide behind the bible. Truth is truth whether it’s in the bible or not.[/quote]

I dont insult peoples faith? :stuck_out_tongue:

But, back to our discussion.

You’re talking about the casual chain in this universe. You also believe in at least one other universe (Heaven… possibly more depending on your specific beliefs). You also believe in a no-universe, only God reality.

Again, your argument is only that something outside of our universe must have created it and set it in motion, and that that something was not caused by anything in this universe.

Given that this solves the paradox of causation for you, you jump to the conclusion that this something is exactly the thing that people who are known as Christians mean when they say “God”. That this thing is sentient, all powerful, all knowing, all loving, desiring, vengeful, etc, etc.

I could just as easily make the case that, as a video someone posted in one of these threads suggested, aliens used a device that created our universe and, in the process, completely destroyed theirs. You would be as unable to “disprove” this explanation as I am to “disprove” god.

98

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Because you call me a pagan, a whore, the anti-christ, self-worshiper, &c. Am I supposed to believe that you want me to be your brother?[/quote]Yes yes, YES!!!, but I have already used more time than I have now.

99

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< He gave Him to save the world and not condemn it. >>>[/quote]If this were literally true then He would be the most miserable failure of all time. You had it right before. He came to save His people from their sins and all the Father gives Him will come and of those He will lose none. He said so. Those are absolute God centered statements and cannot be adjusted by non absolute general statements like John 3:16.

Oh yeah, I know about context Pat =]
[/quote]

John 3:16 is a non-absolute general statement? By what authority do you lessen it’s importance compared to what you decide is important? [/quote]

It’s one of those non-essential doctrines Christians don’t “really” need to hold in order to be in the invisible Church.

100

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you can’t logically argue that everything must be caused on one hand, only to violate that very principle by stating that an uncaused cause exists. The very idea of an uncaused cause contradicts the argument that everything has a cause. Therefore, it is a logically false argument.

Now, if you want to argue that almost everything has a cause that’s fine. But then you must admit that you don’t know what has a cause and what doesn’t. As I’ve argued, it’s perfectly possible that matter and energy have always existed. You can’t prove they have a cause. In fact, the idea that something can be created out of nothing violates everything we know about the laws of conservation.[/quote]

We’re going in circles. I can logically argue the case of the Uncaused-causer because it must necessarily be true for the argument to work. If you look at the function of regression, you either end up with something or nothing, nothing violates logic, infinite regress is fallacious, there is one one answer. It’s very much like algebra in the sense that you may have unknown variables, but the answer is still true. for instance:
(w + 6)3 = 3w + 18 ← We don’t what what ‘w’ is, but this answer is correct and true.

I would argue that while it may appear to violate what we know about the laws of conservation, we don’t actually know everything about conservation.