[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Not so much. All he’s asserting that is that there is a 1st eternal cause.[/quote]
Assertions made with no proof can be dismissed with no proof.[/quote]
Are you suggesting there’s no such thing as a priori knowledge?[/quote]
What’s being suggested by some people here is the opposite of knowledge.
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< What’s being suggested by some people here is the opposite of knowledge.[/quote]Oh I couldn’t agree more. [quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I think what Tirib. is saying is that total nothingness never existed. By definition, an eternal first cause is beyond the constraints of time and space.[/quote]
That would be choice B then.[/quote]
By definition, no.
edit: At least if you’re using the triune Christian God.[/quote]
Yep I got them mixed up, still A. There is no difference in the following
A. Nothing → God → Everything else
C. God → Everything else
I said A, Tirib said C but they are exactly the same. Pat seems to think Atheists are illogical for thinking something came from nothing but all he is doing is inserting God in the middle which fails to fix the original problem/question.[/quote]
Not so much. All he’s asserting that is that there is a 1st eternal cause. The problem is that you’re thinking chronologically and anything eternal doesn’t operate that way.
Now I personally don’t take to the trinity approach. I suggest that existence is it’s own sufficient cause and effect. That’s not to say that there was nothing. In other words, the cause is within the effect and inseparable from its effect.
Granted Christians have a transcendent and material part of God in addition to what’s in the above paragraph. The combo is what’s known as the trinity.
Christians (or anyone knowledgeable), please correct me if I’m mistaken about the trinity or elaborate further if you like.
edited for hopefully more accuracy[/quote]
So the universe can be its own first cause?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, you keep digging your hole deeper. But since you were around at the beginning of existence (only way you can know for sure about these things you are so sure about) can you tell me which of these simple successions is the correct one?
A. Nothing → God → Existence
B. Something → God → Existence
[/quote]
Both are wrong.
C. God → Existence.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I didn’t choose to become religious. God the Father chose me in God the Son to be raised in new life in Him by the power of God the Holy Spirit from all eternity. Maybe you too. If so, you WILL come. AND… you will be glad you did.[/quote]
He choose you? Now you’re predestined. Great.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I think what Tirib. is saying is that total nothingness never existed. By definition, an eternal first cause is beyond the constraints of time and space.[/quote]
That would be choice B then.[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I think what Tirib. is saying is that total nothingness never existed. By definition, an eternal first cause is beyond the constraints of time and space.[/quote]
That would be choice B then.[/quote]
By definition, no.
edit: At least if you’re using the triune Christian God.[/quote]
Yep I got them mixed up, still A. There is no difference in the following
A. Nothing → God → Everything else
C. God → Everything else
I said A, Tirib said C but they are exactly the same. Pat seems to think Atheists are illogical for thinking something came from nothing but all he is doing is inserting God in the middle which fails to fix the original problem/question.[/quote]
But in A you said there was nothing before God…there was always God, so there is no “before” God.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Not so much. All he’s asserting that is that there is a 1st eternal cause.[/quote]
Assertions made with no proof can be dismissed with no proof.[/quote]
Thanks Hitchens.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Not so much. All he’s asserting that is that there is a 1st eternal cause.[/quote]
Assertions made with no proof can be dismissed with no proof.[/quote]
Are you suggesting there’s no such thing as a priori knowledge?[/quote]
What’s being suggested by some people here is the opposite of knowledge.[/quote]
Yes, if you ignore the intellectual history and understanding of knowledge.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So the universe can be its own first cause?[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, you keep digging your hole deeper. But since you were around at the beginning of existence (only way you can know for sure about these things you are so sure about) can you tell me which of these simple successions is the correct one?
A. Nothing → God → Existence
B. Something → God → Existence
[/quote]
Both are wrong.
C. God → Existence. [/quote]
So to clarify, nothing goes before God in that line?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So the universe can be its own first cause?[/quote]
Nope. [/quote]
Can you explain why not? I fail to see how you can know for sure that the universe itself does not have God like properties required to be its own first cause.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I didn’t choose to become religious. God the Father chose me in God the Son to be raised in new life in Him by the power of God the Holy Spirit from all eternity. Maybe you too. If so, you WILL come. AND… you will be glad you did.[/quote]He choose you? Now you’re predestined. Great.[/quote]OHHHHH hallleluJAH!!! BLESS HIS GLORIOUS MAGNIFICENT NAME Christopher. How I do agree indeed. Nothing could be greater!!! While I was yet dead in trespasses and sins, by nature a child of wrath and a rebellious enemy of the most high God. HE loved ME first and called me out of my darkness into His marvelous light. It was MY face He saw with every stripe of that lash. It was MY face He saw with every fall of that hammer and it was MY face He saw when He stepped from that grave victorious over death and alive forevermore and bringing ME with Him. My dear brother, I can barely keep from dancing around this room.
See to Catholics (Big C Chris) that is being “mad as a fish”. To Christians that is the joy of HIS salvation. I love and adore Him because of who He is and what He’s done for me. I serve Him and submit everything I am and everything I have gladly to Him to do with as He pleases out of unquenchable gratitude for His having chosen Me in Him from the foundation of the world. My eternal destiny, THANK YOU JESUS, has NOTHING to do with MY will or effort. He who who knew no sin was made to be sin for me that I might be made the very righteousness of God in Him. My war with sin, thirst for holiness and yearning to see my fellow men saved is the RESULT of this new life. Not the cause of it. I just have to believe you ARE gonna get this one day.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So the universe can be its own first cause?[/quote]
Nope. [/quote]
Can you explain why not? I fail to see how you can know for sure that the universe itself does not have God like properties required to be its own first cause.[/quote]His Thomistic foundation (which is also yours btw) has no answer to that. I’ve answered it, let’s see 1, 2, 3… ten thousand times. I will be happy to point you there.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, you keep digging your hole deeper. But since you were around at the beginning of existence (only way you can know for sure about these things you are so sure about) can you tell me which of these simple successions is the correct one?
A. Nothing → God → Existence
B. Something → God → Existence
[/quote]
Both are wrong.
C. God → Existence. [/quote]
So to clarify, nothing goes before God in that line?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So the universe can be its own first cause?[/quote]
Nope. [/quote]
Can you explain why not? I fail to see how you can know for sure that the universe itself does not have God like properties required to be its own first cause.[/quote]
Because something can’t be it’s own cause.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I didn’t choose to become religious. God the Father chose me in God the Son to be raised in new life in Him by the power of God the Holy Spirit from all eternity. Maybe you too. If so, you WILL come. AND… you will be glad you did.[/quote]He choose you? Now you’re predestined. Great.[/quote]OHHHHH hallleluJAH!!! BLESS HIS GLORIOUS MAGNIFICENT NAME Christopher. How I do agree indeed. Nothing could be greater!!! While I was yet dead in trespasses and sins, by nature a child of wrath and a rebellious enemy of the most high God.[/quote]
So, I was being sarcastic since we are unable to know if we are predestined. But, what you’re saying is that he predestined you to be part of a heretical congregation…not sure I’d be excited about that, even though double-predestination is heresy itself so that would not be true.
Please attempt to. No one wants to see that.
Please show me where Catholics believe predestination makes you mad as a fish?
Making straw man arguments and undocumented claims?
Then stop trying to disembody Jesus and submit to his Kingdom.
Really, what do you mean by this? So, if you murder someone…you’re still cool?
[quote]He who who knew no sin was made to be sin for me that I might be made the very righteousness of God in Him. My war with sin, thirst for holiness and yearning to see my fellow men saved is the RESULT of this new life. Not the cause of it. I just have to believe you ARE gonna get this one day.
[/quote]
Get your heresy? Yes, I get it. I got it for five long years, then I got out of it and submitted to not my made up Popes (Pastor Mark and myself, though with the same Holy Ghost we did not agree on essential doctrines), but the head Shepherd (Pope B16) established by Jesus and the magistrate of Christ’s body, those Bishops in union with the Pope.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So the universe can be its own first cause?[/quote]
Nope. [/quote]
Can you explain why not? I fail to see how you can know for sure that the universe itself does not have God like properties required to be its own first cause.[/quote]His Thomistic foundation (which is also yours btw) has no answer to that. I’ve answered it, let’s see 1, 2, 3… ten thousand times. I will be happy to point you there.
[/quote]
Actually it does, Tirib. Maybe you should stop talking out the side of your neck because you obviously aren’t very knowledgable about Thomist foundations or what I believe or even the basic doctrines of the Catholic Church, obvious from your several straw man arguments, insults, and in general fallacious arguments against Catholicism fueled by your anti-Catholic Bigotry. For Heaven’s sake you can’t even discern between a doctrine and a practice.
If anything Sufi is working off of fundamentalist foundations to argue against Catholicism (and Christianity in general), it doesn’t work except against fundamentalist (though Catholic foundations work better since they are actually true). Though if he’d switch to Catholic foundations (such as Hawkins and Hitchens did to tear apart fundi after fundi after anti-Catholic after anti-Catholic) he’d have no issue with tearing apart fundamentalists’ arguments, but would have to result in a tie or loss against a Catholic.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So the universe can be its own first cause?[/quote]
Nope. [/quote]
Can you explain why not? I fail to see how you can know for sure that the universe itself does not have God like properties required to be its own first cause.[/quote]
Because something can’t be it’s own cause.[/quote]
God is, OR it always existed and has no cause, which one is it? Whatever your answer is I am asking why the Universe can’t have this same property, if God is so special in this case, why can’t the Universe be special and God not exist?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So the universe can be its own first cause?[/quote]
Nope. [/quote]
Can you explain why not? I fail to see how you can know for sure that the universe itself does not have God like properties required to be its own first cause.[/quote]
Because something can’t be it’s own cause.[/quote]
God is, OR it always existed and has no cause, which one is it? Whatever your answer is I am asking why the Universe can’t have this same property, if God is so special in this case, why can’t the Universe be special and God not exist?[/quote]
This is what Einstein and other pagans thought until Einstein was confronted with his colleague’s, Msgr. Georges Lemaitre, Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom.
You can say that the Big Bang theory (properly called the Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom) is unlikely, which would possibly allow you to argue the eternal character of the universe. However, as I do believe that the big bang theory to be likely, I see that the universe did not always exist, so it is not eternal and it had to have a beginning and according to logic, that means that it had to have a cause. And, eventually an eternal cause, infinite regress not being possible. This is usually referred to as the Prime Mover in philosophy.