Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Once surrendered to the Holy Ghost it is indeed crystal clear.
[/quote]

Sorry for my ignorance, but where in the Bible does it say that once we are surrendered to the Holy Ghost that the Bible is indeed crystal clear?[/quote]1st John 2:27 John writing to His “little children”[quote]But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie just as it has taught you, abide in him.[/quote]I chose this verse because even though I vehemently disagree you will try to say that Jesus’s words concerning the promise of the Holy Spirit were for the apostles only and hence the magesterium. As for how does this have anything to do with the bible? Which will be your next question? Nothing from your point of view because clearly God would never canonize an authoritative collection of scriptures (yes I know), promise the Spirit would teach John’s “little children” all things and have that include those scriptures.

142

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

If I can call the uncaused-causer “Alien”, how is it an argument for God?

143

Pat, your argument so far is “Something that exists outside the chain of causation in this universe created this universe and set it in motion.”

Thats it. Just…something.

And you did make all of those assertions because those are attributes of the Christian concept of God. Defend the god of your church, not “something”.

144

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Natural laws? Didn’t know the sun was moved by moral laws. :wink:

I presume you mean laws of nature, well that begs the question what moves laws of nature? Something still tends to stay still.[/quote]

Laws of nature = Natural laws

I’m not sure what you mean. How could the laws of gravity, conservation, etc. be “moved”? They’re simply a description of the way the universe works.

145

[quote]pat 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]
Can you make an argument for matter /energy being both causal and uncaused? [/quote]

Sure, but my position doesn’t require that to be true.

For example, what if some matter and energy exist in a timeless state? We’ve already talked about how that may be the case for light. And what if some matter and energy are time bound? You therefore have matter and energy that is both caused and uncaused. I wonder if it’s possible to move from one state to the other. If you accelerate matter enough, would it enter a timeless state?

146

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Natural laws? Didn’t know the sun was moved by moral laws. :wink:

I presume you mean laws of nature, well that begs the question what moves laws of nature? Something still tends to stay still.[/quote]

Where’d the laws come from and what drives them? I am insufferable.[/quote]

Not insufferable at all, you’re just a truth seeker like me :slight_smile:

I would argue that the laws of nature have always existed, since nature has always existed. If you have matter and energy, that matter and energy has qualities, and our description of those qualities is what we call the laws of nature.

147

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Jeremiah 5:

[quote]2 Although they say, “As surely as the LORD lives,”
still they are swearing falsely.[/quote][/quote]Thank you so much for more of your penetrating and reverent biblical exposition. I’ll give ya hint. That isn’t the only place the phrase occurs.
[/quote]

And I’ll give you a hint: it is a sin to take the name of the Lord in vain, and a heresy to teach falsehoods that directly contradict everything Jesus taught and died for. You are a classic example of the wolf in sheep’s clothing that the prophets warned would try to deceive the very elect. Calvin was a charlatan, and you follow him at your own peril.

148

Hey Trib why do you waste your time with that scum? You know his past, how he lives, what he truly believes in. None of it is good. He’s only on these religious threads to tear down God, the Bible and most everything that is good.

Matthew 7:6 “…Do not throw your pearls to pigs…”

149

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey Trib why do you waste your time with that scum? You know his past, how he lives, what he truly believes in. None of it is good. He’s only on these religious threads to tear down God, the Bible and most everything that is good.

Matthew 7:6 “…Do not throw your pearls to pigs…”[/quote]

Look, kids…it’s Zeb the clown!

queue circus music

150

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey Trib why do you waste your time with that scum? You know his past, how he lives, what he truly believes in. None of it is good. He’s only on these religious threads to tear down God, the Bible and most everything that is good.

Matthew 7:6 “…Do not throw your pearls to pigs…”[/quote]

Look, kids…it’s Zeb the clown!

queue circus music[/quote]

Gee, I didn’t mention your name forlife…feeling guilty about something? Or does the truth hurt so badly that you just want to lash out at people?

I understand, doing the work of your father can be stressful.

151

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Jeremiah 5:

[quote]2 Although they say, “As surely as the LORD lives,”
still they are swearing falsely.[/quote][/quote]Thank you so much for more of your penetrating and reverent biblical exposition. I’ll give ya hint. That isn’t the only place the phrase occurs.
[/quote]

You said “penetrate”!

152

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

If I can call the uncaused-causer “Alien”, how is it an argument for God?[/quote]

What you call the Creator of the universe really doesn’t matter, it’s still the Creator… You call me Erving, I am still the same dude.

153

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat, your argument so far is “Something that exists outside the chain of causation in this universe created this universe and set it in motion.”

Thats it. Just…something.

And you did make all of those assertions because those are attributes of the Christian concept of God. Defend the god of your church, not “something”.[/quote]

And by that we know, by necessity it must have certain unique properties. It must be eternal (in all dimensions not just time), it must sit outside the causal chain, it must be able to cause (which idicates ‘it’ posses a ‘will’ or something like it)…

These are the same properties we attribute to God in Christianity. But more it’s the same properties assigned to the main hindu God, Vishnu, muslim’s attribute the same to Allah, even the Greeks had the ‘Unknown God’ that created everything…Same dude different names. Last time I checked, God himself wasn’t a Christian. Actually, as a man he was Jewish.
Contrary to popular belief, God doesn’t just save folks of a particular church…Heck, he may have come down here, because we’re the worst in his creation not the best…Who knows? I am Catholic because I feel it’s the best way to reach him.

154

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat 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]
Can you make an argument for matter /energy being both causal and uncaused? [/quote]

Sure, but my position doesn’t require that to be true.

For example, what if some matter and energy exist in a timeless state? We’ve already talked about how that may be the case for light. And what if some matter and energy are time bound? You therefore have matter and energy that is both caused and uncaused. I wonder if it’s possible to move from one state to the other. If you accelerate matter enough, would it enter a timeless state?[/quote]

Time is a function of matter and energy, but matter and energy are governed by laws and necessarily bound to them. Therefore, already the dependency removes it’s ability to ‘uncaused’. With out the laws and principles M & E function by, they cease being M & E.

I am probably wasting my time, but it’s all in here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

155

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Natural laws? Didn’t know the sun was moved by moral laws. :wink:

I presume you mean laws of nature, well that begs the question what moves laws of nature? Something still tends to stay still.[/quote]

Where’d the laws come from and what drives them? I am insufferable.[/quote]

Not insufferable at all, you’re just a truth seeker like me :slight_smile:

I would argue that the laws of nature have always existed, since nature has always existed. If you have matter and energy, that matter and energy has qualities, and our description of those qualities is what we call the laws of nature.
[/quote]

Correct, but that does not remove their contingency. If you pull apart the laws, they cease being the same law. The laws are based on something…
All metaphysical obejects are eternal. They never change and they never age or move.

156

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey Trib why do you waste your time with that scum? You know his past, how he lives, what he truly believes in. None of it is good. He’s only on these religious threads to tear down God, the Bible and most everything that is good.

Matthew 7:6 “…Do not throw your pearls to pigs…”[/quote]

Look, kids…it’s Zeb the clown!

queue circus music[/quote]

Gee, I didn’t mention your name forlife…feeling guilty about something? Or does the truth hurt so badly that you just want to lash out at people?

I understand, doing the work of your father can be stressful.
[/quote]

Damn it people, let’s argue points and not personal attacks. We were doing so good. Kiss and make up…

157

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat, your argument so far is “Something that exists outside the chain of causation in this universe created this universe and set it in motion.”

Thats it. Just…something.

And you did make all of those assertions because those are attributes of the Christian concept of God. Defend the god of your church, not “something”.[/quote]You won’t wanna hear this, but I coulda said this myself. (nuthin to do with you at all Pat)

158

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat, your argument so far is “Something that exists outside the chain of causation in this universe created this universe and set it in motion.”

Thats it. Just…something.

And you did make all of those assertions because those are attributes of the Christian concept of God. Defend the god of your church, not “something”.[/quote]You won’t wanna hear this, but I coulda said this myself. (nuthin to do with you at all Pat)
[/quote]

Oh, so you don’t believe God is the creator of all? Weird but ok, we’re obviously talking about different things.

159

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Jeremiah 5:

[quote]2 Although they say, “As surely as the LORD lives,”
still they are swearing falsely.[/quote][/quote]Thank you so much for more of your penetrating and reverent biblical exposition. I’ll give ya hint. That isn’t the only place the phrase occurs.
[/quote]

And I’ll give you a hint: it is a sin to take the name of the Lord in vain, and a heresy to teach falsehoods that directly contradict everything Jesus taught and died for. You are a classic example of the wolf in sheep’s clothing that the prophets warned would try to deceive the very elect. Calvin was a charlatan, and you follow him at your own peril.[/quote]What on earth could I possibly have been thinking? All that prayer and all that study when all I needed to do was ask a loud public denier of Christ. Thanks =]

160

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat, your argument so far is “Something that exists outside the chain of causation in this universe created this universe and set it in motion.”

Thats it. Just…something.

And you did make all of those assertions because those are attributes of the Christian concept of God. Defend the god of your church, not “something”.[/quote]You won’t wanna hear this, but I coulda said this myself. (nuthin to do with you at all Pat)
[/quote] Oh, so you don’t believe God is the creator of all? Weird but ok, we’re obviously talking about different things.[/quote]Oh indeed I do. I also believe that He is the triune God of the Christian scriptures who reveals Himself unavoidably in every fact of the universe and little is gained in proving, as Capped here says, that merely SOMETHING bigger than us exists. Like I say, your involvement in this case is irrelevant. I’m not picking on you.

I didn’t forget about you Chris.