[quote]kamui wrote:
Actually, if they are predestined to go to heaven (and if God is consistent), then they won’t and can’t “go full retard”.
They are be predestined to live a christian life, too.
There’s no “half grace”. [/quote]
Are you sure you don’t want to switch sides? You can still have sex. :)[/quote]
Yes, but the Church is still not ok with sex with multiple partners, outside of marriage and without any pro-creative intention nor with BDSM sophistications.
Yet.
In a century or two maybe.
Joke aside, sex has next to nothing to do with it.
the main problem i see with christianism is its anthropocentrism / anthropomorphism.
Looking forward to it’s potential.[/quote]Pat’s pretty good in these areas though Sparky. BTW, impossible though it is to us? God most definitely does bring everything aside from Himself into existence from nothing. Including black holes ultimately.
But on to a serious question that I’d like to ask of you; how do you square black holes in all of this? You say that something can’t come from nothing, but isn’t this how a black hole behaves?[/quote]
Black holes do not behave like something from nothing. A black hole is simply an area in what general relativity calls spacetime (the term is no longer correct but we still use it out of habit) where the gravitational force caused by matter has become so great within a finite space that the gravitational field is too strong for even light to escape once it has reached the event horizon. They require something (matter) in order to form and the radiation emitted by them is caused mostly by matter reaching and/or crossing the boundary of the event horizon.
Looking forward to it’s potential.[/quote]Pat’s pretty good in these areas though Sparky. BTW, impossible though it is to us? God most definitely does bring everything aside from Himself into existence from nothing. Including black holes ultimately.
[/quote]
That is something i never understood with christian theology. Why “from nothing” and not “from Himself” ?
But on to a serious question that I’d like to ask of you; how do you square black holes in all of this? You say that something can’t come from nothing, but isn’t this how a black hole behaves?[/quote]
Black holes do not behave like something from nothing. A black hole is simply an area in what general relativity calls spacetime (the term is no longer correct but we still use it out of habit) where the gravitational force caused by matter has become so great within a finite space that the gravitational field is too strong for even light to escape once it has reached the event horizon. They require something (matter) in order to form and the radiation emitted by them is caused mostly by matter reaching and/or crossing the boundary of the event horizon.
[/quote]
Interesting, and thanks for your post. I’ve understood previously that black holes, at their core, were made up of super dense matter pulled in by an exceptional amount of gravity. However I’ve been reading some interesting things recently about black holes.
Also, what are your thoughts on loop quantum gravity vs. string theory? Are you loopy or stringy? LOL (for those of you who watch Big Bang Theory, you’ll get the reference.)
Interesting, and thanks for your post. I’ve understood previously that black holes, at their core, were made up of super dense matter pulled in by an exceptional amount of gravity. However I’ve been reading some interesting things recently about black holes. [/quote]
Black holes do pull in lots of matter due to their gravitational pull, but that is not how they are formed. They are formed by condensing so much matter into such a small space that the gravitational force can trap even light. They get "larger as they pull in more matter, although it is not known if that matter will ever become part of the original black hole due to a phenomenon known as gravitational time dilation. That matter may even travel backwards in what we perceive as time. Fun fact, we actually have the technology right now to create black holes, but there is a huge controversy right now in the physics community over whether we should.
What are your thoughts on this:
Let’s just say that I prefer my matter with little strings attached to it (those of you who watch Big Bang Theory will get it).
Seriously, though, the Einstein-Cartan theory, which is what Dr. Poplawski used as his basis for that article, is what led to the idea of Loop Quantum Gravity, which has been shown to be wrong about so many things that it is a dead area of research in physics. Basically, Einstein and his buddies got their math wrong. Nothing that was said in that article should be taken seriously.
Looking forward to it’s potential.[/quote]Pat’s pretty good in these areas though Sparky. BTW, impossible though it is to us? God most definitely does bring everything aside from Himself into existence from nothing. Including black holes ultimately.
[/quote]
That is something i never understood with christian theology. Why “from nothing” and not “from Himself” ?
[/quote]Like God’s triune nature, creation “ex nihilo” is not expressly stated, but is the unavoidable conclusion of a systematic study of the bible as is the utter scriptural impossibility of pantheism which would be “from himself”. The bible knows of two types of entity. Eternal creator and everything else. This is the fatal flaw of the “scale of being”(Aristotle) model wherein God is reduced to the highest biggest, bestest and mostest on a scale of existence that encompass everything including himself. Not Christian. In the Christian view, God occupies an ontological status entirely unique to Himself alone.
[quote]Of God, and of the Holy Trinity
There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal, most just, and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.
In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
By the way, that could mean that the universe caused God.
Bummer. [/quote]
No, it’s not reverse causation, backwards there’s a difference.
Reverse causation is not possible by definition. Effects are results and causes are reasons or acts, if you reverse that, then the role of the effect has switch to a cause and therefore the role reverse, but the cause and effect relationship is still unidirectional.[/quote]
What is reverse and backwards though? You already said time does not matter so what are you basing this on?[/quote]
Time does not matter in the greater scheme, but that doesn’t mean that causal relationships are always time independent. There are time dependent causal relationships we see evidence of that in our daily lives. That does not mean that they are all time dependent.
There are different types of causation. But at the core of all of them is that causes necessitate their effects. ← And that is the only thing I need to make my point.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Pat, I won’t quote everything you said, but you say “You have to prove it wrong for it to be wrong.”
Absolutely false. You must prove something right for it to be right. Otherwise, my argument that Blue Monkeys are the creators are the universe is equally valid as yours.[/quote]
Well, OBVIOUSLY God’s existence debunks your hypothesis. How could blue monkeys have created the universe when God did? It’s all in the bible… WHICH YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T EVEN READ! There, not you have to prove me wrong, or else I’m right! ;)[/quote]
Oh brother. It’s not that you have to prove me wrong. If you want to argument to be wrong, then you have to prove it wrong, because if it’s not wrong, then it’s right. The point isn’t that the argument hasn’t been proven wrong yet, it’s that it’s so solid, it cannot be.
The premises are correct the conclusion they lead to are correct, it’s really that simple.[/quote]
Pat, you know better than this. An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. That is a fact. “If you want to argument to be wrong, then you have to prove it wrong, because if it’s not wrong, then it’s right” is false. Technically, if something is not wrong, it’s right, but you have to prove it so and not base your argument on my inability to prove the contrary. Otherwise, still, blue monkeys created the world. You cannot deny this when I use an argument from ignorance.
[/quote]
Show me where, exactely, the cosmological form is an argument from ignorance?
So which part are you saying is wrong? Is it causation? The logical impossibility of the infinite regress? or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Which one is it. All deductive logic is binary are it’s core. It’s either right or it’s wrong.
I don’t buy the counter argument of “Oh, it’s wrong, we just haven’t thought of how, yet. Wait for it.”
[quote]
Your entire argument is built on the fallacy I have just quoted. There is nothing solid about your argument other than the fact you keep saying “IT MUST BE!”[/quote]
Incorrect, learn the argument and you will see why.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Pat, I won’t quote everything you said, but you say “You have to prove it wrong for it to be wrong.”
Absolutely false. You must prove something right for it to be right. Otherwise, my argument that Blue Monkeys are the creators are the universe is equally valid as yours.[/quote]
Well, OBVIOUSLY God’s existence debunks your hypothesis. How could blue monkeys have created the universe when God did? It’s all in the bible… WHICH YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T EVEN READ! There, not you have to prove me wrong, or else I’m right! ;)[/quote]
Oh brother. It’s not that you have to prove me wrong. If you want to argument to be wrong, then you have to prove it wrong, because if it’s not wrong, then it’s right. The point isn’t that the argument hasn’t been proven wrong yet, it’s that it’s so solid, it cannot be.
The premises are correct the conclusion they lead to are correct, it’s really that simple.[/quote]
I didn’t read any of the conversation you were having before this, but I sincerely doubt your argument was flawless.[/quote]
Actually, it’s not “My argument” I am merely defending it. It’s pretty damn flawless.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Pat, I won’t quote everything you said, but you say “You have to prove it wrong for it to be wrong.”
Absolutely false. You must prove something right for it to be right. Otherwise, my argument that Blue Monkeys are the creators are the universe is equally valid as yours.[/quote]
Well, OBVIOUSLY God’s existence debunks your hypothesis. How could blue monkeys have created the universe when God did? It’s all in the bible… WHICH YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T EVEN READ! There, not you have to prove me wrong, or else I’m right! ;)[/quote]
Oh brother. It’s not that you have to prove me wrong. If you want to argument to be wrong, then you have to prove it wrong, because if it’s not wrong, then it’s right. The point isn’t that the argument hasn’t been proven wrong yet, it’s that it’s so solid, it cannot be.
The premises are correct the conclusion they lead to are correct, it’s really that simple.[/quote]
Pat, you know better than this. An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. That is a fact. “If you want to argument to be wrong, then you have to prove it wrong, because if it’s not wrong, then it’s right” is false. Technically, if something is not wrong, it’s right, but you have to prove it so and not base your argument on my inability to prove the contrary. Otherwise, still, blue monkeys created the world. You cannot deny this when I use an argument from ignorance.
You must prove your argument true. Truly, aside from playing devil’s advocate, I am not asserting that God is nonexistant. I am stating a FACT that it is not clear. Your choice to hold faith in a supernatural being is respectable, but don’t force the issue into binary logic where it will surely fail.
Your entire argument is built on the fallacy I have just quoted. There is nothing solid about your argument other than the fact you keep saying “IT MUST BE!”[/quote]
His argument may not be as faulty as it sounds, depending on what his definition of this “God” thing is.[/quote]
When dealing with the argument itself, I refer to it as ‘Uncaused-cause’, or ‘Necessary Being’ or ‘Prime Mover’ you need extra steps to actually get God out of it. I am only interested in the argument itself at this point.
[quote]pat wrote:
Actually it does a rather good job. You have to prove it wrong for it to be wrong. [/quote]
Not how it works, patty cakes. YOU make the claim, so YOU prove it right.
Should be easy for you, right? If it’s such a supportable claim then shower me with evidence, evidence NOT being a philosophical argument that uses god magic to create something from nothing. That’s faith based reasoning, and it’s shit.
[/quote]
Wow! You really, really don’t understand the argument, at all. I am thinking now you really don’t even know what it is, but your damn sure it’s wrong… he he.
It is both a claim and logic all wrapped up in one convenient bundle. I really find it irritating when I have to educate my counter parts on their own counter arguments.
Here is link. It’s short, it talks about the various forms of the argument and some counter arrangement’s you can even borrow. It’s my standard go to when I am dealing with somebody who doesn’t understand the argument.
It’s not perfect, but it gives you a pretty good general idea of what it actually is, not what you think it could sorta might be because somebody said so. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/[/quote]
Yea, you’ve posted that link before, and I’ve read it before. You still can’t get past the fact that for the argument to work, you have to invoke “god” to terminate the regression, a god that you want to also endow with supernatural capabilities.
You want so bad for this to be irrefutable, rock solid hard evidence, but unfortunately for you it falls short. It’s still a philosophical argument trying to support a preconceived idea. I understand the argument just fine, and I’ve read the incredible spin off of it that believers love so much, and it always comes back to the same problem; the unwarranted assumption that your god must’ve been at the helm of it all.
But since we’re into throwing up links, I’ll post some as well. Please actually read them.
“The third premise of the kalam cosmological argument states that the universe has a cause of its existence. Craig believes that if he has shown this premise to be true, he has proven the existence of the theistic God. However, it is rather obvious that this is not the case. Even if we accept the causal rule, the truthfulness of the Big Bang theory, the impossibility of an actual infinite, Craig’s definition of causation, and his insistence that this sort of causation applies to the universe as a whole, we do not arrive at the conclusion that God is the cause of the universe. Rather, we arrive at the conclusion that the initial Big Bang singularity is the cause of the universe.”
[/quote]
And you missed the fact that I was referring to the cosmological argument from contingency. I was quite specific. Not the Kalam argument which all your links refer to. That was a cheap rip off of Aristotle original argument. The argument I a referring to goes like:
-A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
-This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
-The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
-What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
-Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
-Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
What you presented was a classic strawman attacking a less defensible argument, that I did not actually put forth.
On top of the fact that the authors did not actually represent the Kalam argument correctly either. He didn’t have to go for the First Cause at all, all he had to do was point out that the Kalam argument relies on temporal succession and that’s why its false. \
Your shooting at the wrong target.
Never been proven wrong? LOL…that’s false, even if you choose not to accept it. At best, at it’s very best, all the cosmological argument does for you is make a case for first cause, a first cause which need not be supernatural. You say that something cannot be created out of nothing, but then what created god? LOL…now I know you’ve heard that argument before, but it needs to be addressed without resorting to the supernatural (aka…“god magic”).
How could god have created the universe out of nothing, if nothing existed previously? God magic? So creating something out of nothing IS possible, as long as you’re a super rad god with god magic?
LOL…you beleivers are a hoot.
[/quote]
And you still don’t understand the argument.
Now try to keep up, it’s the “Argument from Contingency” ← It removed the problem of time and deals strictly with causal relationships, infinite regress, and necessary existence.
And no it has never been proven false. If so, go ahead show me some counter claims and I will show you why they are wrong.
Make sure you got the right one this time, would ya?
First, no there are no holes knocked in it. Saying it doesn’t make it true. If so what are they?
Second, I have to prove none of the above, all I have to prove is that God exists and nothing more. I don’t have to prove anything about faith, religion, personal relations, etc. Existence must come first. It’s hard to discuss the properties of something that does not exist because it doesn’t have any.
Third, who ever said anything about being supernatural? What’s so supernatural about existing? Your just superimposing your bias over the conversation. It also doesn’t speak to ‘how’ existence was created, only that it was. Or are you arguing against existence itself?
[quote]
You’re cosmological argument falls flat, patty cakes. It’s a fallacy IMHO, because it completely relies on the idea that god came before and is capable of anything (nothing in nature acts that way). Now, the ontological argument is interesting to me because, in actuality, it’s (partially) right. God does exist, but only in the minds of his fan club. He does not exist in reality.
But on to a serious question that I’d like to ask of you; how do you square black holes in all of this? You say that something can’t come from nothing, but isn’t this how a black hole behaves?[/quote]
It’s a fallacy? Prove it. The correct argument this time. Since you were to lazy to read one lousy page I pasted it ^^ up there for you.
Nothing falls flatter than something from nothing. Prove that garbage to me. Make a logical argument that doesn’t suck that anything can come from nothing.
Black holes? They came from nothing?? LOL!!! yeah, ok.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I should add that I’m thoroughly enjoying this go between and the discussions in this thread. Quite an enjoyable little “scruffy exchange”.
Now back to the argumentation, you dumb asses! LOL
[/quote]
Says the man who thinks black holes came from nothing…I am still laughing…
But on to a serious question that I’d like to ask of you; how do you square black holes in all of this? You say that something can’t come from nothing, but isn’t this how a black hole behaves?[/quote]
Black holes do not behave like something from nothing. A black hole is simply an area in what general relativity calls spacetime (the term is no longer correct but we still use it out of habit) where the gravitational force caused by matter has become so great within a finite space that the gravitational field is too strong for even light to escape once it has reached the event horizon. They require something (matter) in order to form and the radiation emitted by them is caused mostly by matter reaching and/or crossing the boundary of the event horizon.
[/quote]
And aren’t they usually the result of the death of stars? Which would be a casual factor.
Interesting, and thanks for your post. I’ve understood previously that black holes, at their core, were made up of super dense matter pulled in by an exceptional amount of gravity. However I’ve been reading some interesting things recently about black holes. [/quote]
Black holes do pull in lots of matter due to their gravitational pull, but that is not how they are formed. They are formed by condensing so much matter into such a small space that the gravitational force can trap even light. They get "larger as they pull in more matter, although it is not known if that matter will ever become part of the original black hole due to a phenomenon known as gravitational time dilation. That matter may even travel backwards in what we perceive as time. Fun fact, we actually have the technology right now to create black holes, but there is a huge controversy right now in the physics community over whether we should.
What are your thoughts on this:
Let’s just say that I prefer my matter with little strings attached to it (those of you who watch Big Bang Theory will get it).
Seriously, though, the Einstein-Cartan theory, which is what Dr. Poplawski used as his basis for that article, is what led to the idea of Loop Quantum Gravity, which has been shown to be wrong about so many things that it is a dead area of research in physics. Basically, Einstein and his buddies got their math wrong. Nothing that was said in that article should be taken seriously. [/quote]
[quote]kamui wrote:
Actually, if they are predestined to go to heaven (and if God is consistent), then they won’t and can’t “go full retard”.
They are be predestined to live a christian life, too.
There’s no “half grace”. [/quote]
Are you sure you don’t want to switch sides? You can still have sex. :)[/quote]
Yes, but the Church is still not ok with sex with multiple partners, outside of marriage and without any pro-creative intention nor with BDSM sophistications.
Yet.
In a century or two maybe.
Joke aside, sex has next to nothing to do with it.
the main problem i see with christianism is its anthropocentrism / anthropomorphism.
[/quote]
I didn’t say Christian, just a theist.
And I can say I didn’t see that one coming. Anthropomorphism is not something we believe but Anthropocentrism is in the neighborhood. Yep, we believe humans are special, and it’s not difficult to see why on a high level. Why does that bother you?
But on to a serious question that I’d like to ask of you; how do you square black holes in all of this? You say that something can’t come from nothing, but isn’t this how a black hole behaves?[/quote]
Black holes do not behave like something from nothing. A black hole is simply an area in what general relativity calls spacetime (the term is no longer correct but we still use it out of habit) where the gravitational force caused by matter has become so great within a finite space that the gravitational field is too strong for even light to escape once it has reached the event horizon. They require something (matter) in order to form and the radiation emitted by them is caused mostly by matter reaching and/or crossing the boundary of the event horizon.
[/quote]
And aren’t they usually the result of the death of stars? Which would be a casual factor. [/quote]
It usually takes something on the magnitude of a stellar mass to produce a gravitational field strong enough to cause a black hole to form naturally, and the most numerous objects in the universe with a stellar mass are stars, so most black holes are probably formed from massive stars, yes.