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.
[/quote]
Correct assessment. All that is good comes from God, so to say that good acts are worthless or even worse, evil is to say that his grace and goodness are worthless and evil.
[quote]Ryuu: Hmm? I’ve said something un-humble in my post?
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… =/ [/quote]
Well, you certainly did this time. On top of all your assumptions, you merely mock what you don’t understand instead of trying to understand it.
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.
[/quote]
[11] Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.
(3 John 1:11 ESV) 'nuff said.
Sorry to get in on this so late. I’ve read through most of this and it ended up pretty much where I thought it would. I don’t know that I have that much to add but to mention a little question my son asked me last year @ age 12. “Dad, you know the sword that guarded the garden of Eden?” Me - “Yeah?” Son - “How did Adam and Eve know it was dangerous? I mean they never had seen a sword before, or anyone kill anyone else right? So how did they even know what it was or that it might hurt them?”
My reply? - “Damn.”
The problems with the bible as I see them are relatively simple. It is true that in the centuries to follow the beginning of Christianity there were numerous philosophical debates that attempted to resolve many of these readily apparent ‘holes’ therein, and have done passingly well. However why would God inspire things to be written and taken as absolute truth that in turn require SO much debate and resolution in order to be understood when Jesus own apostles were in many cases considered ‘unlettered and ordinary men’.
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian faith, fully embraced and defended it in my youth, and in the last 4 years have gradually given it up completely. I set out to fully prove once and for all that the bible was irrefutable fact and wound up on the other side of the debate. That is not to say that I am an Atheist or an Agnostic. I have NO problem believing in superior intelligence, mated to irresistible power, or that it had a guiding hand in ‘everything’. To me this is altogether possible, but I find the ideas such as that this superior intelligence thought the best way to distinguish his ‘chosen’ people was to have the males cut off there foreskins, is preposterous.
Ponderous lists and instructions for the sacrifice and rendering of animals, as well as bizarre social taboos and a completely inconsistent record of punishment further condemn the scripturee ‘in my opinion’.
In one instance God forgives Manasseh who burned his own children alive in ritual sacrifice to a foreign God, even convincing others to do the same, building places for them to do so. Then in another instance he punishes a group of impolite children who make fun of one of his prophets for the fact that he is bald, by having a she-bear come out of the wilderness and maul them all to death. Neither of these sentences would hold up in any court in the world today.
I am by no means suggesting anyone share these opinions, but to me it is unthinkable to relate the bible with absolute truth, given the outstanding inconsistencies in the basic ideas of God’s Justice, irrefutable Wisdom, and the idea of a person claiming to be the personification of love committing and sanctioning what almost all of his rational creation on this planet would consider hateful and abominable at best.
[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.
[/quote]
You disagree that it is mathematically impossible that two molecules by “pure chance” slammed into each other (a al nothing and at the same time the big bang) and we have the universe as it is today? Take it out of the negative, you agree that it is mathematically possible for two molecules by pure chance to slam into each other and form the universe as we have it today?
I am sorry, Tirib math prevails on this one, the mathematical probability of the big bang to happen by pure chance and form the universe as it is today is impossible. The variables in which you can recreate the universe have a slim, almost nil, if not nil margin of error. And that is on an impossibly simplistic model compared to the universe.
We we were discussing the appearance of patterns in an infinite universe of possibilities. More importantly, my position doesn’t depend on chance alone. The laws of the universe are not random, and in fact produce predictable patterns. I believe those laws are simply a description of the way the universe works. They don’t require the intervention of a supernatural entity in order to exist.
[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???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 only response I’ve seen so far is that matter can’t be noncontingent because everything except one thing must be contingent.
How do you know matter isn’t that noncontingent thing?
And how do you know there is only one noncontingent thing? Maybe matter is ultimately constituted of three core elements that cannot be further reduced.
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. [/quote]
In a bit of a hurry, cant read the link. Time isn’t irrelevant as we’re talking about what happened in the past. if time doesnt exist, there is no past and everything is eternal.
Your claim is God must exist outside the causual chain as we understand it. My claim is we simply don’t understand the causual chain.
[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]
Because the universe would have to be omnipotent, or have the power to move itself.[/quote]
Why would the universe have to be omnipotent?
As to moving itself, the universe is currently moving itself with no need for divine intervention. You’re assuming a start to the movement, but what if it has always moved?[/quote]
Well, I have never seen a rock move itself. Or, anything effect something without something that caused it. A tree doesn’t grow without water, the leaves don’t turn red without fall. Infinite cause and effect is a logical fallacy (the reason why we have people trying to show that casual relation is not true, and is instead just chance). And if you rely on the casual relationship you need a uncaused cause or no effect would have come into existence. The uncaused cause it would need to be something that has the intrinsic power to move itself and move other things.[/quote]
I addressed this in my latest post to Pat. Rocks don’t move themselves, but they respond predictably to natural events. And it’s perfectly possible that this chain extends forever, in both directions. The human mind is incapable of grasping infinity, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.[/quote]
I know God is infinite, however matter is not.
If you look at the natural events, there are explanations for them, hurricanes, caused by the wind, caused by the sun. Earthquakes, plates shifting, molten material heating and cooling under neither the crust.
[/quote]
How do any of your examples prove that matter/energy haven’t always existed?
[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
Sorry to get in on this so late. I’ve read through most of this and it ended up pretty much where I thought it would. I don’t know that I have that much to add but to mention a little question my son asked me last year @ age 12. “Dad, you know the sword that guarded the garden of Eden?” Me - “Yeah?” Son - “How did Adam and Eve know it was dangerous? I mean they never had seen a sword before, or anyone kill anyone else right? So how did they even know what it was or that it might hurt them?”
My reply? - “Damn.”
The problems with the bible as I see them are relatively simple. It is true that in the centuries to follow the beginning of Christianity there were numerous philosophical debates that attempted to resolve many of these readily apparent ‘holes’ therein, and have done passingly well. However why would God inspire things to be written and taken as absolute truth that in turn require SO much debate and resolution in order to be understood when Jesus own apostles were in many cases considered ‘unlettered and ordinary men’.
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian faith, fully embraced and defended it in my youth, and in the last 4 years have gradually given it up completely. I set out to fully prove once and for all that the bible was irrefutable fact and wound up on the other side of the debate. That is not to say that I am an Atheist or an Agnostic. I have NO problem believing in superior intelligence, mated to irresistible power, or that it had a guiding hand in ‘everything’. To me this is altogether possible, but I find the ideas such as that this superior intelligence thought the best way to distinguish his ‘chosen’ people was to have the males cut off there foreskins, is preposterous.
Ponderous lists and instructions for the sacrifice and rendering of animals, as well as bizarre social taboos and a completely inconsistent record of punishment further condemn the scripturee ‘in my opinion’.
In one instance God forgives Manasseh who burned his own children alive in ritual sacrifice to a foreign God, even convincing others to do the same, building places for them to do so. Then in another instance he punishes a group of impolite children who make fun of one of his prophets for the fact that he is bald, by having a she-bear come out of the wilderness and maul them all to death. Neither of these sentences would hold up in any court in the world today.
I am by no means suggesting anyone share these opinions, but to me it is unthinkable to relate the bible with absolute truth, given the outstanding inconsistencies in the basic ideas of God’s Justice, irrefutable Wisdom, and the idea of a person claiming to be the personification of love committing and sanctioning what almost all of his rational creation on this planet would consider hateful and abominable at best. [/quote]
But, God’s ways are higher than our ways, don’t you know? Quit using sinful, fallen man logic. If God sends she bears to rip apart children, and commands Israel to bash the heads of infants against the wall, then it is all GOOD because God only does GOOD.
[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).[/quote]
I like Pope B16’s take on Sola Fide, Sola Fide could only be true if it’s not against charity. Which basically means faith and works.
I’d gesture to say that Protestants believe in salvation by works alone as their proclamation of Jesus as their person Lord and Savior is a mere work of man and supposedly that will get them to Heaven.
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.
[/quote]
I agree that any man doing works on his own (which is when he is not in a state of grace) is filthy rags, I believe that one hundred percent. I, however, as you pointed out, do not believe that ALL works of ALL men are filthy rags, those of the righteous are not filthy rags. It would do good for protestants to take a look at the OT and read the quotes in context. The works of the righteous are worthy of merit because they are the will of God.
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.
[/quote]You keep dangling yer toes in my water which I welcome BTW. Chris is behind a tree on the shore, but not daring to look and Pat is in a temper tantrum over the hill dying of thirst but refusing to even approach that living water. I’m at work. It’ll probably be tonight before I can answer.
Very very short holdover. ANY human effort, work or obedience whatsoever, offered to God as anything like a single particle’s contribution to one’s right standing with Him will get you a one way ticket to hell. All works offered in loving grateful submission to Him for having already saved us are precious in His site. Faith that does not work is no faith at all and works intended to recommend us to God are even worse.
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.
[/quote]
I suppose I am lazy for omitting the source, I typed the article up from a hard copy and thought I wrote the source down at the beginning. My apologies.
I guess you didn’t actually read the document. I am done here, if you aren’t open to looking at what I post then it’s would be a waste of time for me and an unnecessary effort and waste of space for T-Nation.
[quote]
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… =/[/quote]
Yeah, you didn’t read the article or you just didn’t understand it. And, I didn’t find it on the internet, found it in one of my books.
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.
[/quote]
I suppose I am lazy for omitting the source, I typed the article up from a hard copy and thought I wrote the source down at the beginning. My apologies.
I guess you didn’t actually read the document. I am done here, if you aren’t open to looking at what I post then it’s would be a waste of time for me and an unnecessary effort and waste of space for T-Nation.
[quote]
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… =/[/quote]
Yeah, you didn’t read the article or you just didn’t understand it. And, I didn’t find it on the internet, found it in one of my books.[/quote]
Do you think I’m retarded? Do you honestly expect me to believe that you found a book, flipped over to a page dealing with our argument and then proceeded to type out every. Single. Part. Word for word, punctuation for punctuation, spaced the paragraphs exactly the same AND it just so happens that an exact copy of this article spaced, worded and punctuated exactly the same happens to exist AND is on the very first page of Google when you search “When Did Jesus Celebrate the Last Supper?” AND you just so happened to have forgotten to mention this is a copied argument… You didn’t copy/paste this NEARLY subtly enough for you to expect anyone to fall for that bullshit.
Though, I love how you refuse to address my argument because it’s apparently a non-sequitur, but you absolutely refuse to go into ANY detail whatsoever about exactly why my argument is unrelated to the article. Can you spell COPOUT, children?
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.
[/quote]
I suppose I am lazy for omitting the source, I typed the article up from a hard copy and thought I wrote the source down at the beginning. My apologies.
I guess you didn’t actually read the document. I am done here, if you aren’t open to looking at what I post then it’s would be a waste of time for me and an unnecessary effort and waste of space for T-Nation.
You make it sound like I picked up a random book, no I picked up the The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament. I have studied the book front to back, read all the articles and was using it to argue my point. I gave up trying to get you to address my points instead of reiterating the same comments over and over again. So, I just typed up the article out of the book.
I guess I would be a good monk-scribe. I suppose it has something to do with my spell check, too. But, let me have my pride in thinking I typed it perfectly the first time. And, yes it was referenced on the first page of The Gospel According to Saint John in The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament of the RSV, Second Catholic Edition. You can check the book out if you wish. And if you look at your link, they got the article from the same book. Good research on your part. Look at the end of the link: heIgnatiusC-leNewTestament_split_068.html
[quote]
Though, I love how you refuse to address my argument because it’s apparently a non-sequitur, but you absolutely refuse to go into ANY detail whatsoever about exactly why my argument is unrelated to the article. Can you spell COPOUT, children? ;)[/quote]
No, not a cop out, I am just tired of making points and you not addressing them. Why would I keep trying to explain it when I just get the same reaction, that is insanity.
You want to know why you’re argument doesn’t work, because it is pure proof text. It takes in no account for Jewish Soliloquies, traditions, sects, customs, translation, &c. You just read the text and see inconsistencies that are explained when context is provided (which I did with the article) and when you read the context, you just say NO the text the text the text. The text is a Catholic document and tradition, the Catholic Church wrote, it would provide you benefit if you listened to the author of the Bible instead of your own interpretation.
“There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” - 2 Peter 3:16
Supposing you can understand scripture (or prove scripture wrong) on your own without a guide is laughable. Even a minister of the Queen of Ethiopia, a Jewish and educated man, needed a guide to understand Isaiah in Acts 8:31 by Philip.
[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???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 only response I’ve seen so far is that matter can’t be noncontingent because everything except one thing must be contingent.
How do you know matter isn’t that noncontingent thing?
And how do you know there is only one noncontingent thing? Maybe matter is ultimately constituted of three core elements that cannot be further reduced.[/quote]
But it is not. That’s the problem. It can be further reduced.
I really don’t want to take you through a regression on the forum, it takes to long. Just give it a shot. You’ll see what I mean. Everything rolls up into one, no matter what it is.
