First of all, I apologize for the long wait. School has kept me more than busy these last couple of days.
Anyway…
If I recall the last thing I was debating about was with Chris on the contradictory accounts of the life of Jesus, specifically when he was crucified according to Mark and John. To reiterate, John says that Jesus was crucified sometime after noon on the day before Passover/Sabbath - Friday (John 19:14-16/19:31). Mark says that he wasn’t crucified until the first day of Passover and was crucified at 9 am (Mark 14:12, 15:25).
Now, according to John, Jesus wasn’t actually crucified until 19:18. I believe you said something along the lines of the Passover actually began on Wednesday or Thursday and Jesus just wasn’t crucified until the next day. The problem with this is there are only 2 verses in between 16 and 18 and they are taken up with Jesus carrying his cross to Golgotha. So, unless you’re trying to say that Jesus carried that damn cross for 19 consectutive hours, this argument is bunk. Also, if what you say is true, then the conversation at Mark 14:12 couldn’t of happened as, according to you, Jesus had already been captured and most likely carrying his cross.
Mark and John where talking about two different days. There’s no way around this, Mark and John have contradictory accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. Your bible is bunk.
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:<<< We go further to say that these works are part of our salvation and that they are part of our meriting salvation, >>>[/quote](I lifted a bit of context here I realize)As Chris says, we view this as damnable heresy and an affront to the thrice holy God who declares ALL our righteousness as filthy rags. But then we have this >>>—>[quote]jakerz96 wrote:<<< Think about it though… God moves us to turn to Him. We do and then He gives us grace to believe/have faith and do His works, which are our participation in the divine life, but are His free gifts. >>>[/quote]Which on it’s face at least I couldn’t have stated better myself and probably has mi amigo Christopher there staring cross eyed at his blackberry. “What??? Jake just practically restated what Trib’s been saying here for going on a year. That ain’t Catholic.”
Jake (or anyone else), but especially Jake, you may find this interesting though you probably won’t agree with it. Chris if you ever bring yourself to read this you will wind up in apoplectic shock on the floor groping for the number of your bishop. This is Van Til’s Mr. Black, Mr. White and Mr. Grey dialogs, but I can’t remember which book they were in. Maybe “A Survey of Christian Epistemology”. Some fine soul typed up that chapter (with a few typos) and posted it online. Chris, this guy is one of my all time heroes and was a mighty instrument of the God he preached in teaching me how to think. (I hear that laughter folks =] )
Quick background. Jim white sent me a copy of The Defense of the Faith in 1989 with hearty recommendation. I was in the middle of Calvin’s Institutes then which was an act of the providence of the one true God if ever there was one because Calvin was the perfect primer for Van Til. Calvin convinced me of what I was before the God who he also convinced me of what He was. I then read The Defense of the Faith all the way through in less than 2 days even while rereading many parts. I sat there with the book on my lap and just… thought for like 2 hours. My brain hurt, but it was a sweet longing pain. I then opened it up and read it again. This time about 3/4 of the way through the Lord threw that switch in my mind and the light came flooding in. I am one million times more convinced today that what Van Til left us is simply the biblical model for godly thought than I was when I first read him 21 years ago. Oh well, sorry to bore everybody to death, but the thrill ain’t gone baby,
(I left you an opening here Chris, don’t disappoint me. I know you’ll see it)
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:<<< We go further to say that these works are part of our salvation and that they are part of our meriting salvation, >>>[/quote](I lifted a bit of context here I realize)As Chris says, we view this as damnable heresy and an affront to the thrice holy God who declares ALL our righteousness as filthy rags. But then we have this >>>—>[quote]jakerz96 wrote:<<< Think about it though… God moves us to turn to Him. We do and then He gives us grace to believe/have faith and do His works, which are our participation in the divine life, but are His free gifts. >>>[/quote]Which on it’s face at least I couldn’t have stated better myself and probably has mi amigo Christopher there staring cross eyed at his blackberry. “What??? Jake just practically restated what Trib’s been saying here for going on a year. That ain’t Catholic.”
Jake (or anyone else), but especially Jake, you may find this interesting though you probably won’t agree with it. Chris if you ever bring yourself to read this you will wind up in apoplectic shock on the floor groping for the number of your bishop. This is Van Til’s Mr. Black, Mr. White and Mr. Grey dialogs, but I can’t remember which book they were in. Maybe “A Survey of Christian Epistemology”. Some fine soul typed up that chapter (with a few typos) and posted it online. Chris, this guy is one of my all time heroes and was a mighty instrument of the God he preached in teaching me how to think. (I hear that laughter folks =] )
Quick background. Jim white sent me a copy of The Defense of the Faith in 1989 with hearty recommendation. I was in the middle of Calvin’s Institutes then which was an act of the providence of the one true God if ever there was one because Calvin was the perfect primer for Van Til. Calvin convinced me of what I was before the God who he also convinced me of what He was. I then read The Defense of the Faith all the way through in less than 2 days even while rereading many parts. I sat there with the book on my lap and just… thought for like 2 hours. My brain hurt, but it was a sweet longing pain. I then opened it up and read it again. This time about 3/4 of the way through the Lord threw that switch in my mind and the light came flooding in. I am one million times more convinced today that what Van Til left us is simply the biblical model for godly thought than I was when I first read him 21 years ago. Oh well, sorry to bore everybody to death, but the thrill ain’t gone baby,
(I left you an opening here Chris, don’t disappoint me. I know you’ll see it)[/quote]
I think you got my point though, since you yourself said that without the “filthy rags” your faith isn’t real and any Catholic would agree with you. So, we can agree that after having become Christian that we can have some knowledge of our state before God by how He moves us to act/how we act in His grace. I am attempting to build a bridge of understanding (and Chris you just burned a little piece of it), because for me a lot of what I thought of Catholicism growing up was misinformation, especially that part about humans meriting salvation.
You’ll probably find it engaging if nothing else. On another note, Chris usually has me wanting to choke him and hug him at the same time, but I would be careful challenging his knowledge of Catholicism. Not that you are, but I have never once caught him saying anything of significance that wasn’t accurate as far as what the church teaches is concerned.
No Tirib, I wouldn’t say Jakerz restated what you said, at all (as long as you are still holding onto that doctrine of Sola Fide). You need to read again my statements), because you know sure and well that I have stated that Good Works are doing GOD’s WILL, doing His works as Jakerz put it. And, if you honestly do not remember me stating this so, good works are doing God’s will, let me once and for all make it clear:
Good works = God’s will (or, as Jakerz said His works).
And, no Tirib, you proclaim the doctrine of Sola Fide, which is a plain heresy. You proclaim a doctrine that goes directly against the book of James. You proclaim that justification is only by faith alone. You damn the Catholic Church’s charitable acts, even my charitable acts, as being from the Satan himself. Yet, I don’t see you Calvinist preaching the beatitudes, preaching giving to the poor, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, &c. As the Jesus has told us to do.
First of all, I apologize for the long wait. School has kept me more than busy these last couple of days.
Anyway…
If I recall the last thing I was debating about was with Chris on the contradictory accounts of the life of Jesus, specifically when he was crucified according to Mark and John. To reiterate, John says that Jesus was crucified sometime after noon on the day before Passover/Sabbath - Friday (John 19:14-16/19:31). Mark says that he wasn’t crucified until the first day of Passover and was crucified at 9 am (Mark 14:12, 15:25).
Now, according to John, Jesus wasn’t actually crucified until 19:18. I believe you said something along the lines of the Passover actually began on Wednesday or Thursday and Jesus just wasn’t crucified until the next day. The problem with this is there are only 2 verses in between 16 and 18 and they are taken up with Jesus carrying his cross to Golgotha. So, unless you’re trying to say that Jesus carried that damn cross for 19 consectutive hours, this argument is bunk. Also, if what you say is true, then the conversation at Mark 14:12 couldn’t of happened as, according to you, Jesus had already been captured and most likely carrying his cross.
Mark and John where talking about two different days. There’s no way around this, Mark and John have contradictory accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. Your bible is bunk.[/quote]
You’re sure to win someone’s confidence with such humbleness.
When Did Jesus Celebrate the Last Supper?
ON THE SURFACE, the Synoptic Gospels appear to contradict the Gospel of John concerning the date of the Last Supper. All four Gospels agree that Jesus died on Good Friday a few hours before sundown and the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath. However, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus celebrating the Last Supper as a Passover meal prior to Good Friday (Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:15), while John’s Gospel seems to indicate that the Passover was not celebrated by Jewish authorities until the evening of Good Friday itself (Jn 18:28; 19:14). How can Jesus have celebrated the Passover before his crucifixion (Synoptics) when the Passover did not begin until several hours after his death (John)?
Some deal with this problem by denying that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Others suggest that Passover did indeed fall on the evening of Holy Thursday, but that John manipulated the historical facts for theological reasons in order to present Jesus as the true paschal Lamb. Still others hold that Jesus celebrated an anticipatory Passover one day ahead of the official date. Unfortunately, none of these views is satisfactory. Two main solutions, however, have been proposed to reconcile the accounts in John and the Synoptics. Both rely on the findings of modern scholarship as well as ancient traditions of the Church.
The Calender Proposal Some maintain that Jesus, when he celebrated the Last Supper, followed an alternative Jewish calender in which Passover fell on Tuesday night instead of Friday night. Thus, the Synoptic Gospels correctly describe the Last Supper as a Passover meal, whereas John correctly notes that Jewish authorities did not celebrate the feast until the evening of Good Friday. Four considerations are said to favor this solution. (1) It is clear that Judaism was divided over the acceptance of a liturgical calender in the first century. Authorities in control of the Jerusalem Temple followed a solar calender in which annual festivals always fell on the same day of the week year after year. Passover, for instance, was always held on Tuesday night (the first hours of Wednesday) according to the solar calendar. Given this situation, it is conceivable that Jesus followed the Essene calendar instead of the Temple calendar when he celebrated his final Passover. (2) Archaeology suggest that the traditional site of the supper room (the Cenacle) lies within the Essene quarter of ancient Jerusalem. Thus, the probably location of the Last Supper on the southwest hill of the city is precisely where archeologists have uncovered the remains of an Essene settlement from the first century. If the identification holds, this would tighten the possible connection between Jesus, the last Supper, and the Essene solar calendar. (3) The hypothesis that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper on Tuesday night has an added dimension of historical plausibility: it allows more time for the extensive legal proceedings that transpired between his arrest and condemnation. Recall that Jesus was taken before Annas (Jn 18:13, 19-23), Caiaphas (Jn 18:24), the Sanhedrin (Lk 22:66-71), Herod (Lk 23:6-11, and Pilate (Jn 18:28-40). These trials may have occurred during a single nightk, but the events fit more comfortably within the span of several days. (4) A Syriac text from the third century explicitly states that Jesus celebrated the last Supper on Tuesday night (Didascalia Apostolorum 5, 12-18), and other ancient writers, such as bishop Victoriunus of Pettau (De Fabrica Mundi 3) and Saint Epiphanius (Panarion 51, 26), tsate that Jesus was taken into custody on Tuesday night. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI commented that this solution is worthy of consideration (“Homily for the Mass of the Lord’ Supper”, Holy Thursday, 5 April 2007).
The Paschal Proposal Another solution contends that John’s Gospel follows the same chronology as the Synoptics when its historical notations are considered more carefully. On this view, Jesus celebrated the Last Supper on Thursday night, along with the rest of Jerusalem, and the notion that John puts Passover on Friday night is simply a misunderstanding of the evangelist’s use of Passover terminology. Four considerations may be said to favor this hypothesis. (1) It is important to recognize that the word “Passover”, both in Hebrew (pesah) and in Greek (pascha), has a wider range of meaning than simply “Passover lamb” or “Passover meal”. It can also designate the entirety of “Passover week” (Lk 22:1), as well as “the peace offerings sacrificed and eaten during Passover week” (Deut 16:2-3; Mishnah, Pesahim 9, 5). In light of this latter usage, one could say that the Jewish authorities in John 18:28 probably fear that defilement will disqualify them from partaking, not of the Passover Seder (held the night before), but of the celebratory sacrifices eaten durin Passover week. Peace offerings, after all, could not be eaten in a state of ritual defilement (Lev 7:19-20). (2) The supper that Jesus attends in John 13:2 is the same as the Synoptic Last Supper, in which case it was a Passover meal. This is not stated explicitly, but John’s description of the meal highlights features that, taken together, are distinctive of a Passover banquet (e.g., the participants reclined, Jn 13:23; morsels were dipped, Jn 13:26; some thought Judas was sent with an offering for the poor, Jn 13:29; the meal took place at night, Jn 13:30). Thus, the comment that Jesus contemplate his hour “before the feast of the Passover” (Jn 13:1) puts this moment of reflection, not a full day before the paschal celebration began, but on the afternoon of Passover eve, only a short time before the start of the feast. (3) The RSV takes John 19:14 to mean that Jesus was sentenced to death on “the day of Preparation of the Passover”. This translation is not impossible, but neither is it preferable. The Greek term rendered “day of Preparation” is simply the common word for “Friday”, the day when Jews made preparations for the Sabbath (Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54). Since John himself appears to use the term primarily in relation to the Sabbath (See Jn 19:31, 42), it is likely that the expression in John 19:14 means “Friday of Passover week” and is not meant to identify the afternoon of Good Friday as Passover eve. (4) Christian theologians who have favored this solution included Saint John Chrysostom (Homilies on John 83) and Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae III, 46, 9).
Article from Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament (RSV, 2nd Catholic Edition)
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No Tirib, I wouldn’t say Jakerz restated what you said, at all (as long as you are still holding onto that doctrine of Sola Fide). You need to read again my statements), because you know sure and well that I have stated that Good Works are doing GOD’s WILL, doing His works as Jakerz put it. And, if you honestly do not remember me stating this so, good works are doing God’s will, let me once and for all make it clear: >>>[/quote]I know what you’ve said. I am not denying that. I don’t know where you’re getting that. He didn’t say they were “God’s will”. He said they were HIS works as in Him working in us (like it clearly says in Ephesians 1) unless I misunderstood which could be the case [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< And, no Tirib, you proclaim the doctrine of Sola Fide, which is a plain heresy. You proclaim a doctrine that goes directly against the book of James. You proclaim that justification is only by faith alone. >>>[/quote]Sola Fide IS the gospel as I’ve said repeatedly and is in no way challenged by James (Luther was wrong and should have known better)[quote]Brother Chris wrote:You damn the Catholic Church’s charitable acts, even my charitable acts, as being from the Satan himself. >>>[/quote]Yes I do and I stand by that statement. Satan doesn’t care how many poor people are fed as long as he gets to take them to hell which your church is helping him with mightily with it’s false gospel of works and invincible ignorance which we are presently discussing. If it even attempts to preach at all. That Mary’s Meals debacle that Pat posted was all about avoiding any kind of evangelism altogether which is a good thing actually. They’re better off hearing nothing than that.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yet, I don’t see you Calvinist preaching the beatitudes, preaching giving to the poor, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, &c. As the Jesus has told us to do. >>>[/quote]That’s because you aren’t looking. So before you spout off about who’s doing what you oughta do a little homework or ask. Find attached this year’s mission statement from our church wherein we are committed to 100,000 volunteer man hours in and around Detroit feeding the hungry, providing all manner of supplies to the poor, cleaning up the deplorable neighborhoods ETC. ETC. ETC. (I’m in a hurry) WITH THE BLESSING THE DETROIT CITY COUNCIL which has met in our pastor’s office and he, along with other clergy have spoken before the council downtown. We told them we would do work scheduled to be funded by tax revenues for free on the only condition that it would be done overtly to the glory of Christ and to advance His kingdom. That there would be a plain and simple message of salvation though Jesus Christ attached to everything we do or we wouldn’t do it. They agreed. (The ACLU will no doubt be along).
That’s one church. We are in collaboration with at least 75 other local protestant churches who have similar goals which WE WILL achieve in the name of Jesus and to the glorious praise of his most merciful gospel of SOLA FIDE. Good Deeds bring Good News is the clarion call. We don’t have the resources your church does, but we do and spend what we have FOR HIS UNMISTAKABLE GLORY. The fool speaks before he hears my friend. I have to go to work. Since you have impugned our character I will continue the list of charitable works our very calvinistic church is involved in later.
This was yesterday’s message: http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/forum1/host/cities4.mp3 we are dead serious about taking the city of Detroit for the glory of the true and living God as a mighty witness of His power, grace and love. Laugh if you must, but just watch.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]
Thank you! I appreciate the fact that you will put something out there and try to hide behind bullshit. It’s how dialog happens. Now I would appreciate if you read the next part carefully, because it’s dense.
Let’s back up on terminology. Now, what the deductive cosmological form, argues is that since everything that exists is caused and relates to one another through the causal chain, there must be that which is uncaused the bring the caused into existence. It is necessary because an infinite regress cannot exist and problem demands a solution. The only solution is the Uncaused-cause. It also demands that there is only ONE uncaused-cause. You cannot have two.
Well pat, how the fuck do you get God out of that?.. Well, first look at what properties an uncaused-cause must have to be what it is. By the simple fact that it is an uncaused-cause it must: be eternal(in all dimensions), it must be able to cause with out being acted on (indication of will), it must sit outside the causal chain (it can not be caused). A God who is a creator must have the same properties. There cannot both be an uncaused-cause and a God who shares the same properties because only one thing can have those properties. Therefore, the uncaused-cause is God. This is an inferred conclusion, not a deductive one.
Now there are atheists who claim that this uncaused-cause is not God. We can go back and forth, but I cannot prove it like the uncaused-cause. There in lies the only true weakness to the argument.
Now I sense you have a lot of trouble with time. It’s a problematic thing because you can’t see how cool your car looks when you in the car. It’s hard to look at things with out the element of time when you are a slave to it. If you can let that go, things become much easier to comprehend. It doesn’t matter if things have existed for ever, that does not remove their contingencies, there lies the problem.
I know you are very interested in the search for truth…I am too. I would recommend you get involved in philosophy. It’s not religious, it’s pure search for truth and it is the source for all disciplines of study. That why people get Phd.s, doctor of philosophy in ____. Metaphysics is critical to it.
I gave you a Kant link, he’s interesting. I used to hate him but I have warmed up to him. My favorites were, Aristotle, Locke, Hume (I loved Hume, and he was an atheist), Leibinez (mind bender and co-creator of calculus), DesCarte, and a few others… Philosophy demands that it studies it’s own history, the reason is that you don’t rehash old ideas and think they are yours.
If you look, I espouse nothing new, I merely adapt it to the situation at hand…
Pat, you raise several good points that are worth discussing. I want to do them justice, so am going to earmark this post and come back to it once we finish discussing the first point.
It seems to me that what you call the deductive cosmological form is logically contradictory to the idea of an uncaused cause. It states that everything has a cause, and if true it is impossible for there to be an uncaused cause. An uncaused cause is impossible, according to the deductive cosmological form. If an uncaused cause exists, it disproves the idea that everything must have a cause.
Do you see what I’m saying?
[/quote]
Yes, but I disagree. As stated to Captain Planet, the uncaused-cause does not occupy the same logical space. Being uncaused does not automatically disable it from causing. They are two separate properties. If it were the uncausible-causer, then we have a contradiction. It also must necessarily sit outside the causal chain, which does not disable it’s ability to cause (if it wants too), but nothing outside of it can forcibly change it or move it.
Infinity can exist just fine, but an infinite regress cannot because it deals with subtraction. Eventually, your run out of shit to subtract. So you either have to answer the question with something, or go back to the beginning.
It is possible for matter and energy to have always existed, that doesn’t solve the problem of dependency. Same for the laws that matter and energy adhere to like, not being able to be created or destroyed. And indeed, it may never have. The big question there is can or did God create everything out of nothing, or did he create it out of himself which already existsÃ??Ã?¢?Ã??Ã?¦.I have no clue.
There are more problems though, you have paradoxes to deal with too, like Xeno’s paradox. Some say dividing by time solves it but it does not. Dividing by time only tells you where you are on the line, not how you got there.
[/quote]
Pat, the logical contradiction isn’t that if something isn’t caused, it cannot cause.
The contradiction is claiming that everything must have a cause. If that is true, an uncaused cause is impossible.
Your argument against an infinite regress only makes sense if you think narrowly of time as a fixed quantity. However, the laws of relativity show that time is not a fixed quantity. If you acknowledge the possibility of timelessness, an infinite regress doesn’t create a logical contradiction.
And again, there is no problem of dependency if you accept that something (e.g., god or energy/matter) has always existed. By definition, something that has always existed doesn’t depend on anything else in order to exist. It had no beginning, hence it has no cause.
[/quote]
I’ll answer backwards, what makes matter and energy what it is? Sorry to answer a question with a question but the answer, answers your question… Time is irrelevant here, it simply does not matter. Whether it exists infinitely or not, matter and energy is made of stuff and do stuff because of stuff.
Infinite regress is a logical fallacy, because it necessarily begs the question. It’s not the same as arguing against infinity. For instance, what’s an atom made of? why does it do what it does. Where does the stuff that made the atom come from. etc. As you answer each question you’re ‘removing’ properties. This process always leads to the same place. Further, the fewer properties something has, the more it has in common with everything else. For instance, If I held a proton from a gold atom and a proton from a dog shit molecule could you tell the difference? Further, if I were to switched them and put them back, the dog shit would remain dog shit, and the gold would remain gold even though I switched out their protons.
Not everything is contingent, by necessity one thing cannot be. Further, there cannot be more than one non-contingent thing, because regression reduces to one (and always the same one), or none. Since none cannot do anything, one must.
Some have argued, that God’s existence is contingent on the universe, but that’s not so because he can exist and never caused anything, we just wouldn’t be around to question it…[/quote]
Pat, let’s agree and be very clear on the point that not everything is contingent.
If not everything is contingent, something must not be contingent. That something was never created. That something has always existed.
Agreed?
Given that, how can you logically rule out the possibility that matter/energy is that something?
You can’t argue that “it’s impossible, because everything is contingent”. We’ve already agreed that not everything is contingent.
Do you acknowledge the logical possibility that matter/energy have always existed?
[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]
Thank you! I appreciate the fact that you will put something out there and try to hide behind bullshit. It’s how dialog happens. Now I would appreciate if you read the next part carefully, because it’s dense.
Let’s back up on terminology. Now, what the deductive cosmological form, argues is that since everything that exists is caused and relates to one another through the causal chain, there must be that which is uncaused the bring the caused into existence. It is necessary because an infinite regress cannot exist and problem demands a solution. The only solution is the Uncaused-cause. It also demands that there is only ONE uncaused-cause. You cannot have two.
Well pat, how the fuck do you get God out of that?.. Well, first look at what properties an uncaused-cause must have to be what it is. By the simple fact that it is an uncaused-cause it must: be eternal(in all dimensions), it must be able to cause with out being acted on (indication of will), it must sit outside the causal chain (it can not be caused). A God who is a creator must have the same properties. There cannot both be an uncaused-cause and a God who shares the same properties because only one thing can have those properties. Therefore, the uncaused-cause is God. This is an inferred conclusion, not a deductive one.
Now there are atheists who claim that this uncaused-cause is not God. We can go back and forth, but I cannot prove it like the uncaused-cause. There in lies the only true weakness to the argument.
Now I sense you have a lot of trouble with time. It’s a problematic thing because you can’t see how cool your car looks when you in the car. It’s hard to look at things with out the element of time when you are a slave to it. If you can let that go, things become much easier to comprehend. It doesn’t matter if things have existed for ever, that does not remove their contingencies, there lies the problem.
I know you are very interested in the search for truth…I am too. I would recommend you get involved in philosophy. It’s not religious, it’s pure search for truth and it is the source for all disciplines of study. That why people get Phd.s, doctor of philosophy in ____. Metaphysics is critical to it.
I gave you a Kant link, he’s interesting. I used to hate him but I have warmed up to him. My favorites were, Aristotle, Locke, Hume (I loved Hume, and he was an atheist), Leibinez (mind bender and co-creator of calculus), DesCarte, and a few others… Philosophy demands that it studies it’s own history, the reason is that you don’t rehash old ideas and think they are yours.
If you look, I espouse nothing new, I merely adapt it to the situation at hand…
Pat, you raise several good points that are worth discussing. I want to do them justice, so am going to earmark this post and come back to it once we finish discussing the first point.
It seems to me that what you call the deductive cosmological form is logically contradictory to the idea of an uncaused cause. It states that everything has a cause, and if true it is impossible for there to be an uncaused cause. An uncaused cause is impossible, according to the deductive cosmological form. If an uncaused cause exists, it disproves the idea that everything must have a cause.
Do you see what I’m saying?
[/quote]
Yes, but I disagree. As stated to Captain Planet, the uncaused-cause does not occupy the same logical space. Being uncaused does not automatically disable it from causing. They are two separate properties. If it were the uncausible-causer, then we have a contradiction. It also must necessarily sit outside the causal chain, which does not disable it’s ability to cause (if it wants too), but nothing outside of it can forcibly change it or move it.
Infinity can exist just fine, but an infinite regress cannot because it deals with subtraction. Eventually, your run out of shit to subtract. So you either have to answer the question with something, or go back to the beginning.
It is possible for matter and energy to have always existed, that doesn’t solve the problem of dependency. Same for the laws that matter and energy adhere to like, not being able to be created or destroyed. And indeed, it may never have. The big question there is can or did God create everything out of nothing, or did he create it out of himself which already existsÃ???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã???Ã??Ã?¦.I have no clue.
There are more problems though, you have paradoxes to deal with too, like Xeno’s paradox. Some say dividing by time solves it but it does not. Dividing by time only tells you where you are on the line, not how you got there.
[/quote]
Pat, the logical contradiction isn’t that if something isn’t caused, it cannot cause.
The contradiction is claiming that everything must have a cause. If that is true, an uncaused cause is impossible.
Your argument against an infinite regress only makes sense if you think narrowly of time as a fixed quantity. However, the laws of relativity show that time is not a fixed quantity. If you acknowledge the possibility of timelessness, an infinite regress doesn’t create a logical contradiction.
And again, there is no problem of dependency if you accept that something (e.g., god or energy/matter) has always existed. By definition, something that has always existed doesn’t depend on anything else in order to exist. It had no beginning, hence it has no cause.
[/quote]
I’ll answer backwards, what makes matter and energy what it is? Sorry to answer a question with a question but the answer, answers your question… Time is irrelevant here, it simply does not matter. Whether it exists infinitely or not, matter and energy is made of stuff and do stuff because of stuff.
Infinite regress is a logical fallacy, because it necessarily begs the question. It’s not the same as arguing against infinity. For instance, what’s an atom made of? why does it do what it does. Where does the stuff that made the atom come from. etc. As you answer each question you’re ‘removing’ properties. This process always leads to the same place. Further, the fewer properties something has, the more it has in common with everything else. For instance, If I held a proton from a gold atom and a proton from a dog shit molecule could you tell the difference? Further, if I were to switched them and put them back, the dog shit would remain dog shit, and the gold would remain gold even though I switched out their protons.
Not everything is contingent, by necessity one thing cannot be. Further, there cannot be more than one non-contingent thing, because regression reduces to one (and always the same one), or none. Since none cannot do anything, one must.
Some have argued, that God’s existence is contingent on the universe, but that’s not so because he can exist and never caused anything, we just wouldn’t be around to question it…[/quote]
Pat, let’s agree and be very clear on the point that not everything is contingent.
If not everything is contingent, something must not be contingent. That something was never created. That something has always existed.
Agreed?
Given that, how can you logically rule out the possibility that matter/energy is that something?
You can’t argue that “it’s impossible, because everything is contingent”. We’ve already agreed that not everything is contingent.
Do you acknowledge the logical possibility that matter/energy have always existed?[/quote]
Yes, I have acknowledged it a few times and addressed why it does not matter if it has.
Not everything is contingent, but only one thing can be non-contingent. Follow the path of regression and it becomes very evident. Take any object and regress it. A straw, made of plastic, exists in my kitchen, designed to reduce pressure on a liquid so that it travel upwards, etc. Where’d the plastic come from, why can the straw rather be an air plane, etc. You can do this exercise with anything and it will always lead to the same place., every time.
If you like science, you need causation to exist with out randomness. If you have randomness, scientific conclusions become mere correlation and virtually meaningless. It already teeters on that edge in a lot of cases.
The existence of a thing disproves any claim (or at least one of a group of claims together) that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the thing is impossible.
Agree or disagree? [/quote]
Can you clarify what you are trying to say? I really don’t understand what you are saying. Then I can agree or disagree.[/quote]He’s saying that the fact of a thing’s actual existence precludes out of hand it’s impossibility. A statement of positive sort of inverted tautology. I actually agree with him and I bet you do too.
[/quote]
The fact of something existence means that it’s impossible for it not to exist? Is this what is being said?[/quote]
Yes. If a red ball exists, the claim “No one has ever made a red ball” (lets assume that claim means a red ball cannot exist) is untrue.
If a red ball exists, a series of claims, such as “Only X material can be used to make balls, and X material does not exist in red” (leading necessarily to the conclusion that a red ball cannot exist), then one or more of the claims is wrong.
So, the universe exists. Therefore, one of your claims, which taken together make the universe impossible, is wrong.
If the law of thermodynamics and the A theory of time combine to form a conclusion that the universe cannot exist, one or more of those claims is wrong. [/quote]
Which claim have I made, make the universe impossible to exist?
Secondly, cannot actually prove the universe exists, the limited epistemology of the human mind simply prohibit it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just means you are limited by your own humanity. You cannot prove that anything physical isn’t illusory. You can thank DesCarte for that one…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote: He’s saying that the fact of a thing’s actual existence precludes out of hand it’s impossibility. A statement of positive sort of inverted tautology. I actually agree with him and I bet you do too.
[/quote]The fact of something existence means that it’s impossible for it not to exist? Is this what is being said?[/quote]I will defer to him if I’m wrong but that’s the way I read it. I further took it to be a mild snark pointed at you for what he took as you either stating or failing to recognize the painfully obvious. He can also correct me on that if I’m wrong.
[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Pure chance does not produce patterns, it is mathematically impossible.[/quote]I disagree. It is not mathematically impossible, but is so meaninglessly improbable that it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in an infinite, invisible triune being who designed it. In fact almost anything would be more logical and reasonable to believe in than a designer-less, uncreated universe. Geez, the human genome alone makes the very notion laughable. And that’s my best shot at my old Thomistic mindset.
“The race”. Yessir, every one of the elect will win it.[/quote]
Since I am in logic mode that statement is logically incorrect. By very definition only one can win a race. Second, if you are elect, there’s little point in running the race since the winner has been already determined…Just sayin’[/quote]
BOOM! But, how do we become that person? By being in the body of Christ. And, how do we become the body of Christ, by marrying Jesus. How do we marry Jesus, by being his bride, how are we his bride? By being baptized, and partaking in his life giving sacraments taught by the Catholic Church, his one and only holy bride.[/quote]
It’s not a race or a pissing contest.
If you are ‘elect’ you have no choice, no culpability, and complete exoneration. If you are in a race only one person ‘wins’.
I am not trying to beat anybody to heaven. I will be happy just to get there.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No Tirib, I wouldn’t say Jakerz restated what you said, at all (as long as you are still holding onto that doctrine of Sola Fide). You need to read again my statements), because you know sure and well that I have stated that Good Works are doing GOD’s WILL, doing His works as Jakerz put it. And, if you honestly do not remember me stating this so, good works are doing God’s will, let me once and for all make it clear: >>>[/quote]I know what you’ve said. I am not denying that. I don’t know where you’re getting that. He didn’t say they were “God’s will”. He said they were HIS works as in Him working in us (like it clearly says in Ephesians 1) unless I misunderstood which could be the case [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< And, no Tirib, you proclaim the doctrine of Sola Fide, which is a plain heresy. You proclaim a doctrine that goes directly against the book of James. You proclaim that justification is only by faith alone. >>>[/quote]Sola Fide IS the gospel as I’ve said repeatedly and is in no way challenged by James (Luther was wrong and should have known better)[quote]Brother Chris wrote:You damn the Catholic Church’s charitable acts, even my charitable acts, as being from the Satan himself. >>>[/quote]Yes I do and I stand by that statement. Satan doesn’t care how many poor people are fed as long as he gets to take them to hell which your church is helping him with mightily with it’s false gospel of works and invincible ignorance which we are presently discussing. If it even attempts to preach at all. That Mary’s Meals debacle that Pat posted was all about avoiding any kind of evangelism altogether which is a good thing actually. They’re better off hearing nothing than that.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yet, I don’t see you Calvinist preaching the beatitudes, preaching giving to the poor, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, &c. As the Jesus has told us to do. >>>[/quote]That’s because you aren’t looking. So before you spout off about who’s doing what you oughta do a little homework or ask. Find attached this year’s mission statement from our church wherein we are committed to 100,000 volunteer man hours in and around Detroit feeding the hungry, providing all manner of supplies to the poor, cleaning up the deplorable neighborhoods ETC. ETC. ETC. (I’m in a hurry) WITH THE BLESSING THE DETROIT CITY COUNCIL which has met in our pastor’s office and he, along with other clergy have spoken before the council downtown. We told them we would do work scheduled to be funded by tax revenues for free on the only condition that it would be done overtly to the glory of Christ and to advance His kingdom. That there would be a plain and simple message of salvation though Jesus Christ attached to everything we do or we wouldn’t do it. They agreed. (The ACLU will no doubt be along).
That’s one church. We are in collaboration with at least 75 other local protestant churches who have similar goals which WE WILL achieve in the name of Jesus and to the glorious praise of his most merciful gospel of SOLA FIDE. Good Deeds bring Good News is the clarion call. We don’t have the resources your church does, but we do and spend what we have FOR HIS UNMISTAKABLE GLORY. The fool speaks before he hears my friend. I have to go to work. Since you have impugned our character I will continue the list of charitable works our very calvinistic church is involved in later.
This was yesterday’s message: http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/forum1/host/cities4.mp3 we are dead serious about taking the city of Detroit for the glory of the true and living God as a mighty witness of His power, grace and love. Laugh if you must, but just watch.[/quote]
Oh, I love this. The Church is bad by trying to do good. How much LSD was in that kool-aide to make you believe such horse shit.
Actually, I think you’d find more truth from LSD.
So let’s get specific. Why is the Catholic Church evil? Specifically. It is the church that Jesus established himself. He didn’t create the Calvinists by his divine authority 1500 years later, man did that. So the church, which Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against, and you call him a liar by saying it did. You claim with so twisted tortured logic that you are so very good and we are so very bad; going against what Jesus himself said. You claim to be a biblical litleralist yet you urinate on what Jesus himself says.
Who should I believe? Jesus, or you? I think I know where my loyalties stand.
Why specifically is the Catholic Church evil, and the you man made creation so very good?
I want facts, not ad hominums and poetic speeches on made up abominations.
I think someone down the line sold you a line of spriritual bullshit and you bought it hook, line and sinker. So much so that to admit you are wrong, which you are, it would shatter your faith completely. I believe in truth, I believe you ain’t got it.
First of all, I apologize for the long wait. School has kept me more than busy these last couple of days.
Anyway…
If I recall the last thing I was debating about was with Chris on the contradictory accounts of the life of Jesus, specifically when he was crucified according to Mark and John. To reiterate, John says that Jesus was crucified sometime after noon on the day before Passover/Sabbath - Friday (John 19:14-16/19:31). Mark says that he wasn’t crucified until the first day of Passover and was crucified at 9 am (Mark 14:12, 15:25).
Now, according to John, Jesus wasn’t actually crucified until 19:18. I believe you said something along the lines of the Passover actually began on Wednesday or Thursday and Jesus just wasn’t crucified until the next day. The problem with this is there are only 2 verses in between 16 and 18 and they are taken up with Jesus carrying his cross to Golgotha. So, unless you’re trying to say that Jesus carried that damn cross for 19 consectutive hours, this argument is bunk. Also, if what you say is true, then the conversation at Mark 14:12 couldn’t of happened as, according to you, Jesus had already been captured and most likely carrying his cross.
Mark and John where talking about two different days. There’s no way around this, Mark and John have contradictory accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. Your bible is bunk.[/quote]
Oh, how we missed you…
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
So, in effect what we espouse is not so very different from what you do. We just package it and approach from a different angle than you.
[/quote]
No, what they believe is very different than what we believe. They believe our acts of charity are worthless, they are menstrual rags before God.[/quote]
Yes, Chris I am more well versed in Calvinism than you know. My point was to say that our works properly understood (ie from a Catholic perspective) are the action of God’s grace with our response of a surrender of will to His promptings, so in effect God moves us to do them and they are God’s works first and only ours second. I don’t mean to downplay the part of man in this as it is important and is truly on the edge of the razor that cuts away the error that Martin Luther espoused, but it is important I think to point out how similar the approach to the Christian life is in practice for a protestant and a Catholic (which I think is saying something).
Here’s the rub Trib… From your perspective any man acting of his own volition doing “good works” his actions will be found as filthy rags by God. Actually, I agree with that. But you will agree (I assume) that men do good works under the influence (grace) of God and that these works are attributable to God and thus not filthy rags. Now the difference we have is in how much the human person is involved in this. Certainly it isn’t nothing at all, but at the same time it is impossible for us to do anything truly good without God.
Here’s the thing then Trib, when you say our works are filthy rags what you are saying, translated from our end, is God’s works are filthy rags.
The existence of a thing disproves any claim (or at least one of a group of claims together) that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the thing is impossible.
Agree or disagree? [/quote]
Can you clarify what you are trying to say? I really don’t understand what you are saying. Then I can agree or disagree.[/quote]He’s saying that the fact of a thing’s actual existence precludes out of hand it’s impossibility. A statement of positive sort of inverted tautology. I actually agree with him and I bet you do too.
[/quote]
The fact of something existence means that it’s impossible for it not to exist? Is this what is being said?[/quote]
Yes. If a red ball exists, the claim “No one has ever made a red ball” (lets assume that claim means a red ball cannot exist) is untrue.
If a red ball exists, a series of claims, such as “Only X material can be used to make balls, and X material does not exist in red” (leading necessarily to the conclusion that a red ball cannot exist), then one or more of the claims is wrong.
So, the universe exists. Therefore, one of your claims, which taken together make the universe impossible, is wrong.
If the law of thermodynamics and the A theory of time combine to form a conclusion that the universe cannot exist, one or more of those claims is wrong. [/quote]
Which claim have I made, make the universe impossible to exist?
Secondly, cannot actually prove the universe exists, the limited epistemology of the human mind simply prohibit it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just means you are limited by your own humanity. You cannot prove that anything physical isn’t illusory. You can thank DesCarte for that one…[/quote]
All the claims that lead you to the conclusion of a Prime Mover that must exist outside our universe.
If all stuff comes from other stuff, then the first stuff can’t exist. But it does (I think the DesCarte bit is a little hyperphilosophical for the conversation, lets assume the universe exists).
So, either one or more of your claims is incorrect (That stuff always needs other stuff to make it, or that time acts in the way we see it, etc), or a being which can do the impossible (God) must exist, totally outside our time and space and reality.
Given the two options (God vs our understanding of the universe being flawed), I go with the latter. Consider how much has been “known” by past cultures that has turned out to be totally untrue.
Hell, for a while there “Bee’s shouldnt be able to fly, but they do” was proof of God to some. It was eventually explained, proving that the problem wasn’t “and impossible thing is happening!” but “we didn’t understand it yet”.
First of all, I apologize for the long wait. School has kept me more than busy these last couple of days.
Anyway…
If I recall the last thing I was debating about was with Chris on the contradictory accounts of the life of Jesus, specifically when he was crucified according to Mark and John. To reiterate, John says that Jesus was crucified sometime after noon on the day before Passover/Sabbath - Friday (John 19:14-16/19:31). Mark says that he wasn’t crucified until the first day of Passover and was crucified at 9 am (Mark 14:12, 15:25).
Now, according to John, Jesus wasn’t actually crucified until 19:18. I believe you said something along the lines of the Passover actually began on Wednesday or Thursday and Jesus just wasn’t crucified until the next day. The problem with this is there are only 2 verses in between 16 and 18 and they are taken up with Jesus carrying his cross to Golgotha. So, unless you’re trying to say that Jesus carried that damn cross for 19 consectutive hours, this argument is bunk. Also, if what you say is true, then the conversation at Mark 14:12 couldn’t of happened as, according to you, Jesus had already been captured and most likely carrying his cross.
Mark and John where talking about two different days. There’s no way around this, Mark and John have contradictory accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. Your bible is bunk.[/quote]
You’re sure to win someone’s confidence with such humbleness.
When Did Jesus Celebrate the Last Supper?
ON THE SURFACE, the Synoptic Gospels appear to contradict the Gospel of John concerning the date of the Last Supper. All four Gospels agree that Jesus died on Good Friday a few hours before sundown and the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath. However, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus celebrating the Last Supper as a Passover meal prior to Good Friday (Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:15), while John’s Gospel seems to indicate that the Passover was not celebrated by Jewish authorities until the evening of Good Friday itself (Jn 18:28; 19:14). How can Jesus have celebrated the Passover before his crucifixion (Synoptics) when the Passover did not begin until several hours after his death (John)?
Some deal with this problem by denying that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Others suggest that Passover did indeed fall on the evening of Holy Thursday, but that John manipulated the historical facts for theological reasons in order to present Jesus as the true paschal Lamb. Still others hold that Jesus celebrated an anticipatory Passover one day ahead of the official date. Unfortunately, none of these views is satisfactory. Two main solutions, however, have been proposed to reconcile the accounts in John and the Synoptics. Both rely on the findings of modern scholarship as well as ancient traditions of the Church.
The Calender Proposal Some maintain that Jesus, when he celebrated the Last Supper, followed an alternative Jewish calender in which Passover fell on Tuesday night instead of Friday night. Thus, the Synoptic Gospels correctly describe the Last Supper as a Passover meal, whereas John correctly notes that Jewish authorities did not celebrate the feast until the evening of Good Friday. Four considerations are said to favor this solution. (1) It is clear that Judaism was divided over the acceptance of a liturgical calender in the first century. Authorities in control of the Jerusalem Temple followed a solar calender in which annual festivals always fell on the same day of the week year after year. Passover, for instance, was always held on Tuesday night (the first hours of Wednesday) according to the solar calendar. Given this situation, it is conceivable that Jesus followed the Essene calendar instead of the Temple calendar when he celebrated his final Passover. (2) Archaeology suggest that the traditional site of the supper room (the Cenacle) lies within the Essene quarter of ancient Jerusalem. Thus, the probably location of the Last Supper on the southwest hill of the city is precisely where archeologists have uncovered the remains of an Essene settlement from the first century. If the identification holds, this would tighten the possible connection between Jesus, the last Supper, and the Essene solar calendar. (3) The hypothesis that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper on Tuesday night has an added dimension of historical plausibility: it allows more time for the extensive legal proceedings that transpired between his arrest and condemnation. Recall that Jesus was taken before Annas (Jn 18:13, 19-23), Caiaphas (Jn 18:24), the Sanhedrin (Lk 22:66-71), Herod (Lk 23:6-11, and Pilate (Jn 18:28-40). These trials may have occurred during a single nightk, but the events fit more comfortably within the span of several days. (4) A Syriac text from the third century explicitly states that Jesus celebrated the last Supper on Tuesday night (Didascalia Apostolorum 5, 12-18), and other ancient writers, such as bishop Victoriunus of Pettau (De Fabrica Mundi 3) and Saint Epiphanius (Panarion 51, 26), tsate that Jesus was taken into custody on Tuesday night. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI commented that this solution is worthy of consideration (“Homily for the Mass of the Lord’ Supper”, Holy Thursday, 5 April 2007).
The Paschal Proposal Another solution contends that John’s Gospel follows the same chronology as the Synoptics when its historical notations are considered more carefully. On this view, Jesus celebrated the Last Supper on Thursday night, along with the rest of Jerusalem, and the notion that John puts Passover on Friday night is simply a misunderstanding of the evangelist’s use of Passover terminology. Four considerations may be said to favor this hypothesis. (1) It is important to recognize that the word “Passover”, both in Hebrew (pesah) and in Greek (pascha), has a wider range of meaning than simply “Passover lamb” or “Passover meal”. It can also designate the entirety of “Passover week” (Lk 22:1), as well as “the peace offerings sacrificed and eaten during Passover week” (Deut 16:2-3; Mishnah, Pesahim 9, 5). In light of this latter usage, one could say that the Jewish authorities in John 18:28 probably fear that defilement will disqualify them from partaking, not of the Passover Seder (held the night before), but of the celebratory sacrifices eaten durin Passover week. Peace offerings, after all, could not be eaten in a state of ritual defilement (Lev 7:19-20). (2) The supper that Jesus attends in John 13:2 is the same as the Synoptic Last Supper, in which case it was a Passover meal. This is not stated explicitly, but John’s description of the meal highlights features that, taken together, are distinctive of a Passover banquet (e.g., the participants reclined, Jn 13:23; morsels were dipped, Jn 13:26; some thought Judas was sent with an offering for the poor, Jn 13:29; the meal took place at night, Jn 13:30). Thus, the comment that Jesus contemplate his hour “before the feast of the Passover” (Jn 13:1) puts this moment of reflection, not a full day before the paschal celebration began, but on the afternoon of Passover eve, only a short time before the start of the feast. (3) The RSV takes John 19:14 to mean that Jesus was sentenced to death on “the day of Preparation of the Passover”. This translation is not impossible, but neither is it preferable. The Greek term rendered “day of Preparation” is simply the common word for “Friday”, the day when Jews made preparations for the Sabbath (Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54). Since John himself appears to use the term primarily in relation to the Sabbath (See Jn 19:31, 42), it is likely that the expression in John 19:14 means “Friday of Passover week” and is not meant to identify the afternoon of Good Friday as Passover eve. (4) Christian theologians who have favored this solution included Saint John Chrysostom (Homilies on John 83) and Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae III, 46, 9). [/quote]
Hmm? I’ve said something un-humble in my post?
How lazy you are. You know, I have no problem with you copy/pasting your ENTIRE argument, but at the very least post your source. Actually, you should have just posted the link as now it seems like you’re trying to take credit for someone else’s words. Did you think I wouldn’t notice? I know your mannerisms at this point and I’m very good at deriving patterns. You cannot fool me in such a manner.
This “proposal” doesn’t actually solve anything and rather just creates more problems. So, lets assume that Jesus arbitrarily used a different calendar than everyone else and no note of this was made in the bible… (already this idea looks stupid). If Passover was on Tuesday night, that means John must have been talking about Tuesday between noon and six. Do you see the problem now? This would require Jesus to be carrying the cross for 48+ hours straight! Considering that Pilate was surprised at how quickly Jesus died, he couldn’t have been on the cross for more than a few hours and indeed Mark places him on the cross for only seven hours. Another problem, according to John 19:14-16, Jesus was already captured by noon of the day of preparation for Passover. Even if that way was Tuesday, Jesus missed it.
Now, perhaps mark was the one making reference to the Tuesday Passover. Even MORE problems arise. Surely, this solves the problem of when Mark 14:12 occurs, but this totally fucks up the rest of Mark as he places the actual crucifixion of Jesus on the next day at 9 am. This means that Jesus must have been on the cross for 55 hours before dieing for Jesus to die on Friday, 4 pm. Considering how Mark claims Jesus was only on the cross for SEVEN hours this is not possible. (Mark 15:25/33)
This argument fails.
On two part 2: The Paschal Proposal
This “solution” suggests that the Passover was indeed on Thursday night, but there was a simple mistranslation or terminology mistake on john’s part. First off, labeling this a mistake doesn’t erase the contradiction, it only suggests its origin which means there is a still a flaw in your bible thus making it imperfect. I don’t even actually have to debunk this proposal because the proposal itself is predicated on the very thing I am establishing my argument on.
This reconciles NOTHING. You’re merely saying “John got it wrong” and moving on. You idiot, do you not realize that my entire attempt here is to establish flaws in your bible? Your proposed “solution” only serves to admit my hypothesis is correct. How you could possibly of thought this was an argument against me is astounding.
Then again, you probably didn’t even read this and just posted the first thing to come up in your Google search. Utterly underwhelming… =/
The existence of a thing disproves any claim (or at least one of a group of claims together) that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the thing is impossible.
Agree or disagree? [/quote]
Can you clarify what you are trying to say? I really don’t understand what you are saying. Then I can agree or disagree.[/quote]He’s saying that the fact of a thing’s actual existence precludes out of hand it’s impossibility. A statement of positive sort of inverted tautology. I actually agree with him and I bet you do too.
[/quote]
The fact of something existence means that it’s impossible for it not to exist? Is this what is being said?[/quote]
Yes. If a red ball exists, the claim “No one has ever made a red ball” (lets assume that claim means a red ball cannot exist) is untrue.
If a red ball exists, a series of claims, such as “Only X material can be used to make balls, and X material does not exist in red” (leading necessarily to the conclusion that a red ball cannot exist), then one or more of the claims is wrong.
So, the universe exists. Therefore, one of your claims, which taken together make the universe impossible, is wrong.
If the law of thermodynamics and the A theory of time combine to form a conclusion that the universe cannot exist, one or more of those claims is wrong. [/quote]
Which claim have I made, make the universe impossible to exist?
Secondly, cannot actually prove the universe exists, the limited epistemology of the human mind simply prohibit it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just means you are limited by your own humanity. You cannot prove that anything physical isn’t illusory. You can thank DesCarte for that one…[/quote]
All the claims that lead you to the conclusion of a Prime Mover that must exist outside our universe.
If all stuff comes from other stuff, then the first stuff can’t exist. But it does (I think the DesCarte bit is a little hyperphilosophical for the conversation, lets assume the universe exists).
So, either one or more of your claims is incorrect (That stuff always needs other stuff to make it, or that time acts in the way we see it, etc), or a being which can do the impossible (God) must exist, totally outside our time and space and reality.
Given the two options (God vs our understanding of the universe being flawed), I go with the latter. Consider how much has been “known” by past cultures that has turned out to be totally untrue.
Hell, for a while there “Bee’s shouldnt be able to fly, but they do” was proof of God to some. It was eventually explained, proving that the problem wasn’t “and impossible thing is happening!” but “we didn’t understand it yet”.
[/quote]
You must have misunderstood what I said. I didn’t say God exists out side the universe, I said by necessity he must exist out side the causal chain. As far as location, I don’t consider it a physical thing with a physical location. But I do not confirm or deny either possibility.
Our understanding of the universe does not preclude that God cannot exist. Quite the contrary, actually. There is evidence of causality every where, the is no evidence of randomness what so ever. While there is a possibility of eternal matter and energy, there is no evidence of that either. Time is irrelevant to the discussion as removing time does not remove dependencies.
The link I provided you and forlife covers all this stuff. I would recommend it so we don’t repeat arguments already made.
