Open-Mindedness: Do You Understand It?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
And I made no arguments what so ever about “Catholic” Gods or any other kind.
[/quote]

When you say “god” do you mean the god of your bible, also known as Yahweh? Yes or no.[/quote]

Not necessarily. In the context of cosmology, I am speaking of one aspect of God, the Uncausd-causer. This is not a religious argument. It’s a philosophical argument.

Anybody acknowledging the creator, the first cause of all that exists, is talking about the same thing, whether they call is Yahweh, God, Allah, Vishnu, etc…
Even the Greeks had a statue to the unknown God who created everything. [/quote]

No. God is not Allah. God is not Vishnu. Vishnu is not Mazda. Mazda is not Yahweh. Yahweh is not Zeus.

None of these are totally unconscious forces of physics.

[/quote]

I am not talking about the unconscious forces of physics, physics is just a piece of the pie, not the whole. Said, unconscious forces cannot act with out being acted upon.

God is not unconscious physics. Causation is not a slave to physics, it’s the other way around physics is a slave to causation…[/quote]

There is a much better chance that totally unconscious forces of physics are responsible for our universe than a creator god.

But that wasn’t actually the point. Read the post again till you get it.

222

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
And I made no arguments what so ever about “Catholic” Gods or any other kind.
[/quote]

When you say “god” do you mean the god of your bible, also known as Yahweh? Yes or no.[/quote]

Not necessarily. In the context of cosmology, I am speaking of one aspect of God, the Uncausd-causer. This is not a religious argument. It’s a philosophical argument.

Anybody acknowledging the creator, the first cause of all that exists, is talking about the same thing, whether they call is Yahweh, God, Allah, Vishnu, etc…
Even the Greeks had a statue to the unknown God who created everything. [/quote]

No. God is not Allah. God is not Vishnu. Vishnu is not Mazda. Mazda is not Yahweh. Yahweh is not Zeus.

None of these are totally unconscious forces of physics.

[/quote]

I am not talking about the unconscious forces of physics, physics is just a piece of the pie, not the whole. Said, unconscious forces cannot act with out being acted upon.

God is not unconscious physics. Causation is not a slave to physics, it’s the other way around physics is a slave to causation…[/quote]

There is a much better chance that totally unconscious forces of physics are responsible for our universe than a creator god.

But that wasn’t actually the point. Read the post again till you get it.[/quote]

Oh? Please do explain…

223

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
And I made no arguments what so ever about “Catholic” Gods or any other kind.
[/quote]

When you say “god” do you mean the god of your bible, also known as Yahweh? Yes or no.[/quote]

Not necessarily. In the context of cosmology, I am speaking of one aspect of God, the Uncausd-causer. This is not a religious argument. It’s a philosophical argument.

Anybody acknowledging the creator, the first cause of all that exists, is talking about the same thing, whether they call is Yahweh, God, Allah, Vishnu, etc…
Even the Greeks had a statue to the unknown God who created everything. [/quote]

No. God is not Allah. God is not Vishnu. Vishnu is not Mazda. Mazda is not Yahweh. Yahweh is not Zeus.

None of these are totally unconscious forces of physics.

[/quote]

I am not talking about the unconscious forces of physics, physics is just a piece of the pie, not the whole. Said, unconscious forces cannot act with out being acted upon.

God is not unconscious physics. Causation is not a slave to physics, it’s the other way around physics is a slave to causation…[/quote]

There is a much better chance that totally unconscious forces of physics are responsible for our universe than a creator god.

But that wasn’t actually the point. Read the post again till you get it.[/quote]

Oh? Please do explain…[/quote]

Words have meaning. Saying “God created the universe” is not the same as “Something created the universe”

As soon as you assign the word “god” to the “something”, you’re making a lot of inferred claims - this is why, as a catholic, you do not accept that “allah created the universe” or “doorknobs created the universe” (even if I decide to hijack the definition of doorknob to include "something that can create a universe).

All you’ve ever made an argument for is that something created the universe. Never, not once, not even a little bit, that god did. You just replaced the word “something” with “god” - you’re not allowed to do that.

224

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< That which contradicts logic, is never right… <<<[/quote]So I take it that you do not believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnated as a truly human man?
[/quote]And you are willfully being retarded, why exactly?[/quote]Is it possible to have an adult dialog with you? Come on Pat.
Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Question 9 The immutability of God, Article 1. Whether God is altogether immutable?

[quote]On the contrary, It is written, “I am the Lord, and I change not” (Malachi 3:6).
I answer that, From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether immutable.[/quote]How does an immutable God now have a human body that He didn’t have “before” as if before and after, notions of time, could apply to Him logically either? How is this subject to autonomous human logic? BTW, I agree with Thomas here. God is indeed altogether immutable.
[/quote]

Yes, when you act like one.

I am discussing philosophy not theology. So throwing a 600 lbs. straw man at me will draw a response in kind. Everything is not theology as much as you want it to be. I don’t have to be blind and willfully ignorant to live in faith, that’s your problem not mine. I can discuss lots of topics with out beating people over the head with a bible all the damn time. [/quote]I rest my case

225

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Words have meaning. Saying “God created the universe” is not the same as “Something created the universe”

As soon as you assign the word “god” to the “something”, you’re making a lot of inferred claims - this is why, as a catholic, you do not accept that “allah created the universe” or “doorknobs created the universe” (even if I decide to hijack the definition of doorknob to include "something that can create a universe).

All you’ve ever made an argument for is that something created the universe. Never, not once, not even a little bit, that god did. You just replaced the word “something” with “god” - you’re not allowed to do that.

[/quote]

No, that’s not what I said. The only time I ever mentioned that is when you stated you do not know how the universe came to be, but it could not have been God. To which I stated that it’s strange to say you don’t know how some thing functions, but you eliminate variables with out reason for doing so. So yes, it would also be dumb to eliminate flying spaghetti monster until you have sufficient evidence for doing so.

Cosmology refers to a ‘Necessary Being’, uncaused-cause, Prime mover. I have always stated that God is inferred from that, because he is thought to have those properties. Only one thing can have those properties, therefore the inference is fairly strong.
I didn’t say God created the universe, I say that God, being the Necessary being brought existence into being. I never stated how far down the causal chain the universe came into being…You made all those assumptions yourself. I lent nothing to that, at all. You’ve been accusing me the entire time of things I did not say.

Now if you concede the existence of the Uncaused-cause, then we can discuss what the nature of something like that must be, in order to be what it is.

226

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< That which contradicts logic, is never right… <<<[/quote]So I take it that you do not believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnated as a truly human man?
[/quote]And you are willfully being retarded, why exactly?[/quote]Is it possible to have an adult dialog with you? Come on Pat.
Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Question 9 The immutability of God, Article 1. Whether God is altogether immutable?

[quote]On the contrary, It is written, “I am the Lord, and I change not” (Malachi 3:6).
I answer that, From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether immutable.[/quote]How does an immutable God now have a human body that He didn’t have “before” as if before and after, notions of time, could apply to Him logically either? How is this subject to autonomous human logic? BTW, I agree with Thomas here. God is indeed altogether immutable.
[/quote]

Yes, when you act like one.

I am discussing philosophy not theology. So throwing a 600 lbs. straw man at me will draw a response in kind. Everything is not theology as much as you want it to be. I don’t have to be blind and willfully ignorant to live in faith, that’s your problem not mine. I can discuss lots of topics with out beating people over the head with a bible all the damn time. [/quote]I rest my case
[/quote]

That would require making one, which you did not do.

227

[quote]pat wrote:

No, that’s not what I said. The only time I ever mentioned that is when you stated you do not know how the universe came to be, but it could not have been God. To which I stated that it’s strange to say you don’t know how some thing functions, but you eliminate variables with out reason for doing so. So yes, it would also be dumb to eliminate flying spaghetti monster until you have sufficient evidence for doing so.
[/quote]

…no, really.

Unless that “one thing” doesnt actually exist and is only said to have those properties because you’re making it up and can therefore assign any properties to it arbitrarily.

Flying spaghetti monster can create the universe. See how I just explained the universe?

“God didnt create the universe, he just brought existence into being.” Clarify.

[quote]

Now if you concede the existence of the Uncaused-cause, then we can discuss what the nature of something like that must be, in order to be what it is.[/quote]

Nope.

229

[quote]pushharder wrote:
“But man, proud man,
Dressed in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he’s most assured,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As makes the angels weep.”[/quote]

Bravo

230

[quote]pushharder wrote:
“But man, proud man,
Dressed in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he’s most assured,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As makes the angels weep.”[/quote]

“Well, heaven forgive him, and forgive us all!
Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall.”

231

“Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie,
Which we ascribe to Heaven.”

“Flying spaghetti monster created the universe”

  • Actually it was created by Fridge Magnet the Great, son of Frangipani Pants and I can prove it. You know all those things we can’t explain? Fridge Magnet does/did them. See?
232

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
pat wrote:

No, that’s not what I said. The only time I ever mentioned that is when you stated you do not know how the universe came to be, but it could not have been God. To which I stated that it’s strange to say you don’t know how some thing functions, but you eliminate variables with out reason for doing so. So yes, it would also be dumb to eliminate flying spaghetti monster until you have sufficient evidence for doing so.

…no, really.

Cosmology refers to a ‘Necessary Being’, uncaused-cause, Prime mover. I have always stated that God is inferred from that, because he is thought to have those properties. Only one thing can have those properties, therefore the inference is fairly strong.

Unless that “one thing” doesnt actually exist and is only said to have those properties because you’re making it up and can therefore assign any properties to it arbitrarily.

Flying spaghetti monster can create the universe. See how I just explained the universe?
[/quote]
That is not the argument, but suit yourself. That’s not the argument I presented at all. But if you want to go with the ‘FSM of gaps’ argument’ go ahead, live it up. This has nothing to do with what I presented though. Feel free to look up the argument and find the ‘gap’. If it is what you say it is, this should not be a hard task…But actually refer to the argument and don’t make things up arbitrarily.

The Uncaused-cause could have been the initiator of the universe itself, or the universe, we know could have been in a succession of event after the first effect, I do not know which is which. But everything that exists is contingent upon something else for its existence. Examining contingency posses a regress, you cannot regress infinitely because it begs the question and becomes circular which makes the argument false. Therefore, to stop the regress you must have something that is non-contingent, but things are contingent upon it…
Seriously, I thought we have been through this before. It’s more like an equation. The premises must reach this and only this conclusion, there cannot be another. Like an algebraic equation, you do not need to know all the variables for the answer to be correct. 3i*4i=12i ← You do not need to know what ‘i’ is for this answer to be correct.
I really thought we’d had been through this before ad nauseam.

Suit yourself, no sweat off my balls.

233

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie,
Which we ascribe to Heaven.”

“Flying spaghetti monster created the universe”

  • Actually it was created by Fridge Magnet the Great, son of Frangipani Pants and I can prove it. You know all those things we can’t explain? Fridge Magnet does/did them. See?[/quote]

Nope, don’t see…Prove it.

234

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie,
Which we ascribe to Heaven.”

“Flying spaghetti monster created the universe”

  • Actually it was created by Fridge Magnet the Great, son of Frangipani Pants and I can prove it. You know all those things we can’t explain? Fridge Magnet does/did them. See?[/quote]

Nope, don’t see…Prove it.[/quote]

Now you’re just being difficult. How do you explain the complexity of the eyeball? Answer: Fridge Magnet. The fact that complicated organic systems exist is proof in itself of the existence of Fridge Magnet.

235

[quote]pat wrote: 3i*4i=12i ← You do not need to know what ‘i’ is for this answer to be correct.

[/quote]

basic math fail.

236

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie,
Which we ascribe to Heaven.”

“Flying spaghetti monster created the universe”

  • Actually it was created by Fridge Magnet the Great, son of Frangipani Pants and I can prove it. You know all those things we can’t explain? Fridge Magnet does/did them. See?[/quote]

Nope, don’t see…Prove it.[/quote]

Now you’re just being difficult. How do you explain the complexity of the eyeball? Answer: Fridge Magnet. The fact that complicated organic systems exist is proof in itself of the existence of Fridge Magnet.[/quote]

How? Let’s see the argument. Sounds like a ‘Fridge Magnet of gaps theory’ to me…

237

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote: 3i*4i=12i ← You do not need to know what ‘i’ is for this answer to be correct.

[/quote]

basic math fail.[/quote]

Uh, ok what does 3i*4i equal then?
I mean it has been a while, but still, not a hard problem.

238

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote: 3i*4i=12i ← You do not need to know what ‘i’ is for this answer to be correct.

[/quote]

basic math fail.[/quote]

Uh, ok what does 3i*4i equal then?
I mean it has been a while, but still, not a hard problem.[/quote]

12i squared. dunno how to make an exponent here.

239

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote: 3i*4i=12i ← You do not need to know what ‘i’ is for this answer to be correct.

[/quote]

basic math fail.[/quote]

Uh, ok what does 3i*4i equal then?
I mean it has been a while, but still, not a hard problem.[/quote]

12i squared. dunno how to make an exponent here.[/quote]
12i^2

240

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote: 3i*4i=12i ← You do not need to know what ‘i’ is for this answer to be correct.

[/quote]

basic math fail.[/quote]

Uh, ok what does 3i*4i equal then?
I mean it has been a while, but still, not a hard problem.[/quote]

12i squared. dunno how to make an exponent here.[/quote]
Ok, you got me there. 12i ^2 it is.