Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Incorrect, cosmology and Romans 1 are not incompatible in any way shape or form.

102

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I prefer the visible church, it has kneelers and the Eucharist :wink:

103

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

I put forth that the Bible is not crystal clear message for mere man, and only crystal clear for the Holy Ghost.

104

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I said you haven’t insulted me or my faith to me…So don’t start it would be much appreciated.

Now, it is true that I can only infer the uncaused-causer is God. Since both have the property of being causers and not being caused I can infer that the uncaused causer is the same thing as the God of religions, if those religions worship the creator.

No, I cannot argue against the alien theory, but I can asked, where did they come from, why did they do it, what cause them to create, what caused their destruction…It’s does not free them from the bonds of causation.

105

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

You know it’s hard to convince someone of your point when you just call them names and provide no proof or justification for how or why they are wrong. Now, as for me, I hope to get around to destroying the errant tenant of irresistible grace. For if it were true, then there would be no possibility for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit…But more on that later.

106

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I said you haven’t insulted me or my faith to me…So don’t start it would be much appreciated.

Now, it is true that I can only infer the uncaused-causer is God. Since both have the property of being causers and not being caused I can infer that the uncaused causer is the same thing as the God of religions, if those religions worship the creator.

No, I cannot argue against the alien theory, but I can asked, where did they come from, why did they do it, what cause them to create, what caused their destruction…It’s does not free them from the bonds of causation.[/quote]

To which I could apply the exact “God-set” of answers you feel totally comfortable with applying to the deity you worship. They didn’t come from anywhere, they always existed. We cannot fully understand their cause or reasons. The universe creating machine caused their destruction.

This is why you can hide (and have hid) behind the failsafe of “If god does not exist, disprove god”. Its impossible to “disprove” something you’re willing to accept answers for, and attributes to, that you refuse to accept on anything else. Everything is bound by causation (except god), everything is limited (except god), nothing can defy the laws of physics (except god), no one knows the future (except god), vengefulness is immoral (except god’s), murder is immoral (except when god does it), nothing can defy logic (except god), nothing is perfect (except god). You aim to be logical and rational, but logic and rationality means applying the same rules to everything, not making up (or inheriting the idea of) some being that defies every single rule and starting from there.

So, yes - the aliens exist totally outside of causation the same way your God does. Makes things a bit messy, yeah?

107

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I said you haven’t insulted me or my faith to me…So don’t start it would be much appreciated.

Now, it is true that I can only infer the uncaused-causer is God. Since both have the property of being causers and not being caused I can infer that the uncaused causer is the same thing as the God of religions, if those religions worship the creator.

No, I cannot argue against the alien theory, but I can asked, where did they come from, why did they do it, what cause them to create, what caused their destruction…It’s does not free them from the bonds of causation.[/quote]

To which I could apply the exact “God-set” of answers you feel totally comfortable with applying to the deity you worship. They didn’t come from anywhere, they always existed. We cannot fully understand their cause or reasons. The universe creating machine caused their destruction.

This is why you can hide (and have hid) behind the failsafe of “If god does not exist, disprove god”. Its impossible to “disprove” something you’re willing to accept answers for, and attributes to, that you refuse to accept on anything else. Everything is bound by causation (except god), everything is limited (except god), nothing can defy the laws of physics (except god), no one knows the future (except god), vengefulness is immoral (except god’s), murder is immoral (except when god does it), nothing can defy logic (except god), nothing is perfect (except god). You aim to be logical and rational, but logic and rationality means applying the same rules to everything, not making up (or inheriting the idea of) some being that defies every single rule and starting from there.

So, yes - the aliens exist totally outside of causation the same way your God does. Makes things a bit messy, yeah?[/quote]

Incorrect. The “aliens” cannot exist outside of causation, unless they are God. But “they” cannot be because there can only be one uncaused-cause, having more than one invalidates the argument. Further, it cannot be deduced by regression. Saying the uncaused-cause is the initiator of causation because it logically must be so is not the same thing as inventing something out of thin air and saying “prove me wrong”. I am not saying that, I am saying prove the argument wrong. If you want to call the Uncaused-causer an ‘Alien’ go ahead. It doesn’t matter what you call it, it still is what it is. But their still cannot be more than one, regression demands that’s the case. You also cannot say the creator destroyed itself in the creation of existence, because such a necessary being must necessarily sit outside the causal chain and therefore cannot be acted upon. If it is destroyed it did so of it’s own will.

It’s not messy at all, it’s actually very clean and linear. At least you are trying, I do wish you’d read the link though, it cuts through all this stuff already…

As for the other stuff, I did not make any of those assertions.

108

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Instead of insulting my fallen intellect, how about addressing my points? I’m still waiting for an answer on how it makes any kind of sense that Jesus would weep because Jerusalem chose not to accept his gospel, if he were the puppet god you claim. Did he have second thoughts about damning them, and wish he had saved them instead? Obviously not, since the scripture says it was because THEY chose to reject him.

You can’t cherry pick statements from Paul, whom Peter specifically said was hard to understand and whose words people would twist to their own destruction, while ignoring an entire bible filled with messages about the free gift of grace offered to all, and the commandment for all to repent, come unto him, and be saved.

You can choose to worship a farm boy from Holland as your guide to salvation, but you only prove Peter’s prophetic words to be true.

109

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

But Pat, your uncaused cause violates logic because it has no cause itself. Your uncaused cause is fallacious because it requires an infinite regress. You’re claiming this uncaused cause had no beginning, but insist it’s impossible for matter and energy to have had no beginning. I’m just asking for the same logical standards to be applied, whether talking about god or about matter and energy. You can’t insist matter and energy had a beginning, while claiming god had no beginning. If one theory is possible, so is the other.

110

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Interesting way of showing it.

111

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I prefer the visible church, it has kneelers and the Eucharist ;)[/quote]

CATHOLIC BURPEES!!! If you’re out of shape and out of grace, come to Mass. Two birds, one stone.

112

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

But Pat, your uncaused cause violates logic because it has no cause itself. Your uncaused cause is fallacious because it requires an infinite regress. You’re claiming this uncaused cause had no beginning, but insist it’s impossible for matter and energy to have had no beginning. I’m just asking for the same logical standards to be applied, whether talking about god or about matter and energy. You can’t insist matter and energy had a beginning, while claiming god had no beginning. If one theory is possible, so is the other.[/quote]

Casual relationships with infinite regression begs the question, but what moved that? Something would have to be the first mover that itself didn’t need to be moved.

113

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

But Pat, your uncaused cause violates logic because it has no cause itself. Your uncaused cause is fallacious because it requires an infinite regress. You’re claiming this uncaused cause had no beginning, but insist it’s impossible for matter and energy to have had no beginning. I’m just asking for the same logical standards to be applied, whether talking about god or about matter and energy. You can’t insist matter and energy had a beginning, while claiming god had no beginning. If one theory is possible, so is the other.[/quote]

Casual relationships with infinite regression begs the question, but what moved that? Something would have to be the first mover that itself didn’t need to be moved.[/quote]

Why couldn’t that something be matter and energy?

114

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<<You can’t cherry pick statements from Paul, >>>
You can choose to worship a farm boy from Holland as your guide to salvation, but you only prove Peter’s prophetic words to be true.[/quote]Pretty good man. Jesus also wept right before raising Lazarus from the dead. Stay tuned. I’m not givin up on you either.

115

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<<You can’t cherry pick statements from Paul, >>>
You can choose to worship a farm boy from Holland as your guide to salvation, but you only prove Peter’s prophetic words to be true.[/quote]Pretty good man. Jesus also wept right before raising Lazarus from the dead. Stay tuned. I’m not givin up on you either.
[/quote]

So he damns people to hell without even giving them the chance to avoid an eternity of suffering, but he weeps because he feels bad about it? And he doesn’t really mean it when he says that it was his will for them to repent, but they would not? I thought Jesus couldn’t lie. Come on, dude. That is total crap, and despite your poetic pontifications, you know it as well as I do.

116

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

But Pat, your uncaused cause violates logic because it has no cause itself. Your uncaused cause is fallacious because it requires an infinite regress. You’re claiming this uncaused cause had no beginning, but insist it’s impossible for matter and energy to have had no beginning. I’m just asking for the same logical standards to be applied, whether talking about god or about matter and energy. You can’t insist matter and energy had a beginning, while claiming god had no beginning. If one theory is possible, so is the other.[/quote]

Casual relationships with infinite regression begs the question, but what moved that? Something would have to be the first mover that itself didn’t need to be moved.[/quote]

Why couldn’t that something be matter and energy?[/quote]

Perhaps it is, but have you seen matter move on it’s own power without something else moving it?

117

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<<You can’t cherry pick statements from Paul, >>>
You can choose to worship a farm boy from Holland as your guide to salvation, but you only prove Peter’s prophetic words to be true.[/quote]Pretty good man. Jesus also wept right before raising Lazarus from the dead. Stay tuned. I’m not givin up on you either.
[/quote]

So he damns people to hell without even giving them the chance to avoid an eternity of suffering, but he weeps because he feels bad about it? And he doesn’t really mean it when he says that it was his will for them to repent, but they would not? I thought Jesus couldn’t lie. Come on, dude. That is total crap, and despite your poetic pontifications, you know it as well as I do.[/quote]Look here bub. You may have these proponents of “invincible ignorance” snowed with this dog n pony show of yours, but you can spare me the charade. You couldn’t care less what the bible says. I’m still not givin up on ya though.

118

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<<You can’t cherry pick statements from Paul, >>>
You can choose to worship a farm boy from Holland as your guide to salvation, but you only prove Peter’s prophetic words to be true.[/quote]Pretty good man. Jesus also wept right before raising Lazarus from the dead. Stay tuned. I’m not givin up on you either.
[/quote]

Oh, Lord dear Jesus, please I’d love to here the connection between the Christ in anguish because of his upcoming death because of raising his righteous and rich friend Lazarus from his tomb and weeping over those who will not accept them even though he came as their savior. Please, show me.

119

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<<You can’t cherry pick statements from Paul, >>>
You can choose to worship a farm boy from Holland as your guide to salvation, but you only prove Peter’s prophetic words to be true.[/quote]Pretty good man. Jesus also wept right before raising Lazarus from the dead. Stay tuned. I’m not givin up on you either.
[/quote]

So he damns people to hell without even giving them the chance to avoid an eternity of suffering, but he weeps because he feels bad about it? And he doesn’t really mean it when he says that it was his will for them to repent, but they would not? I thought Jesus couldn’t lie. Come on, dude. That is total crap, and despite your poetic pontifications, you know it as well as I do.[/quote]Look here bub. You may have these proponents of “invincible ignorance” snowed with this dog n pony show of yours, but you can spare me the charade. You couldn’t care less what the bible says. I’m still not givin up on ya though.
[/quote]

How do you know we’re proponents of Invincible Ignorance when you do not even understand it.

120

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

But Pat, your uncaused cause violates logic because it has no cause itself. Your uncaused cause is fallacious because it requires an infinite regress. You’re claiming this uncaused cause had no beginning, but insist it’s impossible for matter and energy to have had no beginning. I’m just asking for the same logical standards to be applied, whether talking about god or about matter and energy. You can’t insist matter and energy had a beginning, while claiming god had no beginning. If one theory is possible, so is the other.[/quote]

Casual relationships with infinite regression begs the question, but what moved that? Something would have to be the first mover that itself didn’t need to be moved.[/quote]

Why couldn’t that something be matter and energy?[/quote]

Perhaps it is, but have you seen matter move on it’s own power without something else moving it?[/quote]

Yes, I saw the sun rise this morning based on nothing more than natural laws… Again, the natural laws of the universe don’t require intelligence or intent to move matter.