Yahweh: Exclusively the Jewish God?

[JoabSonOfZeruiah]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Logic does not in anyway point to a god or gods for that matter. Also the premise that since the universe must have had a cause to come into existence isnt so logical after all and are more a reflectection of a
linear understanding of time. For all we know the universe have existed forever without a start and without an end. The only logical conclusion we can make today is that we dont know shit about the beginning of the universe, and all the explanations that are out there( god, gods, big bang etc ) are merely speculations and
should be classified as hypothesis untill they are verified or falsified.
[/quote]
Incorrect, time has nothing to do with it. It wouldn’t matter if the universe has always existed, if matter has existed, etc. It’s irrelevant. Time itself is a contingent contstraint and quite frankly, it’s just a measure.

If we could with logic point to a supernatural being or beings that created everything, then we still dont know if the God of Abraham that jews/christians and muslims believes in are THE GOD. It could be that the Greecs or the babylonians had it right. So in the end we still dont know shit ergo this discussion that might be fun and all doesnt solve a question that hasnt been answered in houndreds or thousands of years. No I dont think that anyone here actually thinks that a discussion on T-Nation will be able to solve this mystery, atleast I hope nobody think that

You may be unaware of the arguments for the existence of God but they do exist and the two top ones stand unrefuted. There is the ontological argument and the cosmological form, the first is actually much more complicated as than it seems. It requires an iron clad understanding of metaphysics to make sense. I used to be more dismissive of it, but an understanding of idealism and ontology does make the argument more compelling. It’s difficult to refute, perhaps impossible, but not all avenues have been explored. Then you have the cosmological argument from contingency. The ‘from contingency’ part is the important part as it takes time and any other potential constraint out of the system. For the argument to work, the conclusion must necessarily be constraint free.
Now neither argument, argues for a biblical entity necessarily, but both imply that only one thing in existence can have the properties ‘It’ has, those properties happen to be something only a God-like entity can have. Since you cannot have two things sharing properties that only one thing can have, the two must be one.

Once you’ve determined that, then you can start discussing religion and faith. Discussing it prior puts the cart before the horse.[/quote]
I am really fond of the ontological form as well, but I think its a bad idea to have it in such a troll thread.[/quote]

No, you definitely need folks in the know, or it would be simply torture to discuss. It’s really time consuming when you have to educate your counter part as well as argue with them.
[/quote]
Yeah Ive tried discussing the ontological from with forlife and it was nowhere near as fruitful as that discussion of the argument from contingency we had with him.

[florelius]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Okay a couple of things.

1. what are this arguments for a god, could you explain them?
   [/quote]
   Here’s a good overview of the cosmological form. The kalam versions is garbage, I don’t even know why it’s in there… The argument from Contingency is the important one…
   Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I’ll try and find a good version of the ontological argument.

2. Can they be tested aka are they subject to the scientific method or are they purely abstract?

The scientific method is an empirical methodology that derives correlation and implies causation. Even if you could test it in a test tube, if would be void of absolutes. Deductive logic is what is required here. You can start in the physical, but you end up in the metaphysical.

3. Do they disprove a godless beginning of the universe or are they( this arguments you talk of ) merely
   arguments that troguh logic shows that a god-like being is possible?

The universe itself is a contingent entity. It was caused by something else…And if you want to get super technical, you cannot prove anything physical exists, so it’s problematic.[/quote]

Have can you know that the universe( read: every thing that exist ) cannot exist without a cause?

And if the premise that everything needs a cause to exist is true, then what about the “being” that caused the universe, doesnt that also need a cause? So arent the premis for the argument the same that makes it impossible?

So it doesnt get us any further and I still think it is safe to conclude that we dont know how the universe started and that we dont know if the universe had a start.

note: I read the beginning of the link you provided and this was my understanding of the argument. So if I misundestood it, feel free to enlighten me.

[JoabSonOfZeruiah]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Okay a couple of things.

1. what are this arguments for a god, could you explain them?
   [/quote]
   Here’s a good overview of the cosmological form. The kalam versions is garbage, I don’t even know why it’s in there… The argument from Contingency is the important one…
   Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I’ll try and find a good version of the ontological argument.

2. Can they be tested aka are they subject to the scientific method or are they purely abstract?

The scientific method is an empirical methodology that derives correlation and implies causation. Even if you could test it in a test tube, if would be void of absolutes. Deductive logic is what is required here. You can start in the physical, but you end up in the metaphysical.

3. Do they disprove a godless beginning of the universe or are they( this arguments you talk of ) merely
   arguments that troguh logic shows that a god-like being is possible?

The universe itself is a contingent entity. It was caused by something else…And if you want to get super technical, you cannot prove anything physical exists, so it’s problematic.[/quote]

Have can you know that the universe( read: every thing that exist ) cannot exist without a cause?

And if the premise that everything needs a cause to exist is true, then what about the “being” that caused the universe, doesnt that also need a cause? So arent the premis for the argument the same that makes it impossible?

So it doesnt get us any further and I still think it is safe to conclude that we dont know how the universe started and that we dont know if the universe had a start.

note: I read the beginning of the link you provided and this was my understanding of the argument. So if I misundestood it, feel free to enlighten me.

[/quote]
That’s not the premise of the argument or else the conclusion would necessarily end up as an infinite regression which is a fallacy. The premise is that a contingent thing exists and that the reason or explanation for it does not reside in itself.

[florelius]

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Okay a couple of things.

1. what are this arguments for a god, could you explain them?
   [/quote]
   Here’s a good overview of the cosmological form. The kalam versions is garbage, I don’t even know why it’s in there… The argument from Contingency is the important one…
   Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I’ll try and find a good version of the ontological argument.

2. Can they be tested aka are they subject to the scientific method or are they purely abstract?

The scientific method is an empirical methodology that derives correlation and implies causation. Even if you could test it in a test tube, if would be void of absolutes. Deductive logic is what is required here. You can start in the physical, but you end up in the metaphysical.

3. Do they disprove a godless beginning of the universe or are they( this arguments you talk of ) merely
   arguments that troguh logic shows that a god-like being is possible?

The universe itself is a contingent entity. It was caused by something else…And if you want to get super technical, you cannot prove anything physical exists, so it’s problematic.[/quote]

Have can you know that the universe( read: every thing that exist ) cannot exist without a cause?

And if the premise that everything needs a cause to exist is true, then what about the “being” that caused the universe, doesnt that also need a cause? So arent the premis for the argument the same that makes it impossible?

So it doesnt get us any further and I still think it is safe to conclude that we dont know how the universe started and that we dont know if the universe had a start.

note: I read the beginning of the link you provided and this was my understanding of the argument. So if I misundestood it, feel free to enlighten me.

[/quote]
That’s not the premise of the argument or else the conclusion would necessarily end up as an infinite regression which is a fallacy. The premise is that a contingent thing exists and that the reason or explanation for it does not reside in itself.[/quote]

Sorry, but this didnt make sense to me( could be because english is my second language and my grasp on english arent perfect ), so could you explain it further if possible?

If you dont want to, thats okay.

[JoabSonOfZeruiah]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Okay a couple of things.

1. what are this arguments for a god, could you explain them?
   [/quote]
   Here’s a good overview of the cosmological form. The kalam versions is garbage, I don’t even know why it’s in there… The argument from Contingency is the important one…
   Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I’ll try and find a good version of the ontological argument.

2. Can they be tested aka are they subject to the scientific method or are they purely abstract?

The scientific method is an empirical methodology that derives correlation and implies causation. Even if you could test it in a test tube, if would be void of absolutes. Deductive logic is what is required here. You can start in the physical, but you end up in the metaphysical.

3. Do they disprove a godless beginning of the universe or are they( this arguments you talk of ) merely
   arguments that troguh logic shows that a god-like being is possible?

The universe itself is a contingent entity. It was caused by something else…And if you want to get super technical, you cannot prove anything physical exists, so it’s problematic.[/quote]

Have can you know that the universe( read: every thing that exist ) cannot exist without a cause?

And if the premise that everything needs a cause to exist is true, then what about the “being” that caused the universe, doesnt that also need a cause? So arent the premis for the argument the same that makes it impossible?

So it doesnt get us any further and I still think it is safe to conclude that we dont know how the universe started and that we dont know if the universe had a start.

note: I read the beginning of the link you provided and this was my understanding of the argument. So if I misundestood it, feel free to enlighten me.

[/quote]
That’s not the premise of the argument or else the conclusion would necessarily end up as an infinite regression which is a fallacy. The premise is that a contingent thing exists and that the reason or explanation for it does not reside in itself.[/quote]

Sorry, but this didnt make sense to me( could be because english is my second language and my grasp on english arent perfect ), so could you explain it further if possible?

If you don’t want to, that’s okay.

[/quote]
Contingency is most easily apprehended in terms of causality but not restricted to it. Michelangelo’s David is a contingent thing, it has a material cause(the block of marble) and an efficient cause(Michelangelo). It is shown to be contingent(could have failed to exist) in that its existence depends on external factors to itself and that it itself is not the reason for its existence but rather in the example I gave the reason for its existence are the two causes I described.

When one looks at many of the things and features of the universe they apprehend that they are contingent and that the universe itself is contingent.

[florelius]

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Okay a couple of things.

1. what are this arguments for a god, could you explain them?
   [/quote]
   Here’s a good overview of the cosmological form. The kalam versions is garbage, I don’t even know why it’s in there… The argument from Contingency is the important one…
   Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I’ll try and find a good version of the ontological argument.

2. Can they be tested aka are they subject to the scientific method or are they purely abstract?

The scientific method is an empirical methodology that derives correlation and implies causation. Even if you could test it in a test tube, if would be void of absolutes. Deductive logic is what is required here. You can start in the physical, but you end up in the metaphysical.

3. Do they disprove a godless beginning of the universe or are they( this arguments you talk of ) merely
   arguments that troguh logic shows that a god-like being is possible?

The universe itself is a contingent entity. It was caused by something else…And if you want to get super technical, you cannot prove anything physical exists, so it’s problematic.[/quote]

Have can you know that the universe( read: every thing that exist ) cannot exist without a cause?

And if the premise that everything needs a cause to exist is true, then what about the “being” that caused the universe, doesnt that also need a cause? So arent the premis for the argument the same that makes it impossible?

So it doesnt get us any further and I still think it is safe to conclude that we dont know how the universe started and that we dont know if the universe had a start.

note: I read the beginning of the link you provided and this was my understanding of the argument. So if I misundestood it, feel free to enlighten me.

[/quote]
That’s not the premise of the argument or else the conclusion would necessarily end up as an infinite regression which is a fallacy. The premise is that a contingent thing exists and that the reason or explanation for it does not reside in itself.[/quote]

Sorry, but this didnt make sense to me( could be because english is my second language and my grasp on english arent perfect ), so could you explain it further if possible?

If you don’t want to, that’s okay.

[/quote]
Contingency is most easily apprehended in terms of causality but not restricted to it. Michelangelo’s David is a contingent thing, it has a material cause(the block of marble) and an efficient cause(Michelangelo). It is shown to be contingent(could have failed to exist) in that its existence depends on external factors to itself and that it itself is not the reason for its existence but rather in the example I gave the reason for its existence are the two causes I described.

When one looks at many of the things and features of the universe they apprehend that they are contingent and that the universe itself is contingent.[/quote]

Okay now I understand what you are trying to say. Thank you for that explanation, it was very good.

So if I understand it know( lets hope I do ), then this argument can only point to that the universe needs a primemover to come into existence and that this primemover( the uncontigent ) can be a god-like being or what lead to Big bang etc, but doesnt answer the question of whom of the possible scenarios are true.

Thats what I got out of it anyway.

[pat]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Yeah you did. I don’t expect you to be honest about it.
[/quote]

Well, you’re a secret muslim. I don’t expect you to be honest about it.

[quote]
You demonstrated my ‘paranoid theories’ to be spot on. I explained why you question was stupid and not in anyway analogous to the story you were drawing from. If you had wanted to ask the question in the nature of what you were trying to dig out, you would not have picked the story of Saul. There were better characters to choose from. [/quote]

No I didn’t, you’re just asserting that. No you didn’t you just asserted it. Saul works fine and you confirmed this by weaselling out of it, but if you have “better” examples I’m all ears.

[quote]
God doesn’t belong to me. You don’t know my position because you didn’t ask and I haven’t told you. So presuming my position is dumb with out knowing what it is, is dumb. You’re only real issue is your just full yourself and you think you know more than you do. [/quote]

Actually, the only reason why I don’t know your position on these topics is because you’re too much of a weasel-y coward to answer the questions I’ve asked you. I know you are a Christian, which is a dumb world view and no one has ever shown me otherwise, but if you can then by all means. I’ll hear you out.

[quote]
I am certain of God’s existence. The two positions you presented don’t represent my positions. You’re a very 2 dimensional thinker.[/quote]

Mmm I see, you thought I was using the word “gnostic” in reference to gnosticism. I was actually using it in the more archaic sense of the word, in same way one would say “a/gnostic atheist”.

All right, so what makes you certain of God’s existence, and why the Catholic God, specifically?

That wasn’t the question though was it? You asked if I would do what Saul did or what Saul fail to complete. Agian, God didn’t demand Saul kill all the Amelekites, it’s what they wanted and what the Hebrews and Saul asked God for. That’s way different than God asking asking someone to randomly destroy people. It was a was, a battle, God’s instruction was an ‘if, then’ statement, ‘if you want to solve this problem, then this is what you need to do to solve it’.
I had been patiently waiting for you to figure it out, or at least maybe, you’d do a little research, but nope, couldn’t do that. You just stubbornly stuck to yet another misinformed position.

So, If I understand you correctly, the mitzvah demanding the complete eradication of the Amalekites was just God saying “Hey, if you don’t like 'em so much, you could always kill 'em.”, a statement the Israelites heard and said, “Good enough for me! It’s now law!”?

Apparently, you don’t understand the term ‘not bound by it’, He necessarily has to still above logic. If he was subjective to it, he wouldn’t be God, either logic or something else in the metaphysical hierarchy would be. It has nothing to do with God acting logically or illogically.

So when I see God doing something illogical, he isn’t actually being illogical? He’s using… “mystic God-logic”… Which is unbound by conventional logic?[/quote]

Geez, why are you stalking me?

[pat]

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
No, you definitely need folks in the know, or it would be simply torture to discuss. It’s really time consuming when you have to educate your counter part as well as argue with them.

Yeah Ive tried discussing the ontological from with forlife and it was nowhere near as fruitful as that discussion of the argument from contingency we had with him.[/quote]

Yeah, forlife is a smart guy, but his understanding of metaphysics was pretty fresh as he didn’t even believe it existed until reasonably. The whole idea of conception to reality is not going to make much sense because it’s hard to establish how the line between metaphysical entities blurs at that level. The lines of concept and reality and the fact that an idea may not be an idea, but a discovery as all idea’s really are, is compelling. I used to just say that you cannot make that jump from concept to reality, but I was being ignorant and Berkeley is my daddy.
The cosmological form is hard enough for lay people to grasp, but it’s much more approachable, does the job nicely, and is irrefutable.

[pat]

[quote]florelius wrote:

That’s not the premise of the argument or else the conclusion would necessarily end up as an infinite regression which is a fallacy. The premise is that a contingent thing exists and that the reason or explanation for it does not reside in itself.[/quote]

Sorry, but this didnt make sense to me( could be because english is my second language and my grasp on english arent perfect ), so could you explain it further if possible?

If you don’t want to, that’s okay.

Contingency is most easily apprehended in terms of causality but not restricted to it. Michelangelo’s David is a contingent thing, it has a material cause(the block of marble) and an efficient cause(Michelangelo). It is shown to be contingent(could have failed to exist) in that its existence depends on external factors to itself and that it itself is not the reason for its existence but rather in the example I gave the reason for its existence are the two causes I described.

When one looks at many of the things and features of the universe they apprehend that they are contingent and that the universe itself is contingent.

Okay now I understand what you are trying to say. Thank you for that explanation, it was very good.

So if I understand it know( lets hope I do ), then this argument can only point to that the universe needs a primemover to come into existence and that this primemover( the uncontigent ) can be a god-like being or what lead to Big bang etc, but doesnt answer the question of whom of the possible scenarios are true.

Thats what I got out of it anyway.

[/quote]

You’re a quick learner florelius… it be non-contingent and be able to create is something most people would agree is something that could only belong to something ‘God-like’. It’s unique in that, those properties are unique to that alone, nothing else can have them. The regression necessitates that…
And you’re correct in that it does not answer what the scenarios are, they really could be anything. A universe, a multiverse, an existence of any kind existing forever, but they still ultimately depend on this non-contingent, contingency. The elegance it has is it can be applied to any scenario.

If you want to kind of ‘see it’ in action. Let’s take a look at matter, or it’s latest theories and presume they are true. So we know matter is mostly made up of space. That it’s made up of particles with weight, charge and movement. Then as current theories submit that these can be further reduced to singularities that move. Of course this reduces matter to basically pure energy and our sense perceive them as matter. You break it down further, you have a singularity, where’d it come from, how it come in to being. Now this singularity has frequency because of it’s oscillations, how does it move? Then you have to rules that guide its behavior ← this is metaphysics, but with out rules or laws or what not, this singularity cannot do what it does and do it consistently. What you get then is a hierarchy of rules and states that this singularity must adhere to. Not only does it has rules, those rules are enforced somehow, then you have to ask where these rules and guiding principles came from.

This regression can go on a while, but in the end you get to a state where something is dependent on something else that is not dependent�?�¢?�?�¦.

Now causation can look two ways, one you can say, ‘The electricity caused the light bulb to emit light.’ ← That’s a normal temporal causal statement. A contingent causal statement would look like this ‘The light bulb emits light because of electricity’ ← in this statement, the temporal succession is removed.

I hope I made sense…It made sense in my head.

[florelius]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

That’s not the premise of the argument or else the conclusion would necessarily end up as an infinite regression which is a fallacy. The premise is that a contingent thing exists and that the reason or explanation for it does not reside in itself.[/quote]

Sorry, but this didnt make sense to me( could be because english is my second language and my grasp on english arent perfect ), so could you explain it further if possible?

If you don’t want to, that’s okay.

Contingency is most easily apprehended in terms of causality but not restricted to it. Michelangelo’s David is a contingent thing, it has a material cause(the block of marble) and an efficient cause(Michelangelo). It is shown to be contingent(could have failed to exist) in that its existence depends on external factors to itself and that it itself is not the reason for its existence but rather in the example I gave the reason for its existence are the two causes I described.

When one looks at many of the things and features of the universe they apprehend that they are contingent and that the universe itself is contingent.

Okay now I understand what you are trying to say. Thank you for that explanation, it was very good.

So if I understand it know( lets hope I do ), then this argument can only point to that the universe needs a primemover to come into existence and that this primemover( the uncontigent ) can be a god-like being or what lead to Big bang etc, but doesnt answer the question of whom of the possible scenarios are true.

Thats what I got out of it anyway.

[/quote]

You’re a quick learner florelius… it be non-contingent and be able to create is something most people would agree is something that could only belong to something ‘God-like’. It’s unique in that, those properties are unique to that alone, nothing else can have them. The regression necessitates that…
And you’re correct in that it does not answer what the scenarios are, they really could be anything. A universe, a multiverse, an existence of any kind existing forever, but they still ultimately depend on this non-contingent, contingency. The elegance it has is it can be applied to any scenario.

If you want to kind of ‘see it’ in action. Let’s take a look at matter, or it’s latest theories and presume they are true. So we know matter is mostly made up of space. That it’s made up of particles with weight, charge and movement. Then as current theories submit that these can be further reduced to singularities that move. Of course this reduces matter to basically pure energy and our sense perceive them as matter. You break it down further, you have a singularity, where’d it come from, how it come in to being. Now this singularity has frequency because of it’s oscillations, how does it move? Then you have to rules that guide its behavior ← this is metaphysics, but with out rules or laws or what not, this singularity cannot do what it does and do it consistently. What you get then is a hierarchy of rules and states that this singularity must adhere to. Not only does it has rules, those rules are enforced somehow, then you have to ask where these rules and guiding principles came from.

This regression can go on a while, but in the end you get to a state where something is dependent on something else that is not dependent�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦.

Now causation can look two ways, one you can say, ‘The electricity caused the light bulb to emit light.’ ← That’s a normal temporal causal statement. A contingent causal statement would look like this ‘The light bulb emits light because of electricity’ ← in this statement, the temporal succession is removed.

I hope I made sense…It made sense in my head.[/quote]

You made sense and it wasnt all in your head, so congrats you are sane afterall

[pat]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

That’s not the premise of the argument or else the conclusion would necessarily end up as an infinite regression which is a fallacy. The premise is that a contingent thing exists and that the reason or explanation for it does not reside in itself.[/quote]

Sorry, but this didnt make sense to me( could be because english is my second language and my grasp on english arent perfect ), so could you explain it further if possible?

If you don’t want to, that’s okay.

Contingency is most easily apprehended in terms of causality but not restricted to it. Michelangelo’s David is a contingent thing, it has a material cause(the block of marble) and an efficient cause(Michelangelo). It is shown to be contingent(could have failed to exist) in that its existence depends on external factors to itself and that it itself is not the reason for its existence but rather in the example I gave the reason for its existence are the two causes I described.

When one looks at many of the things and features of the universe they apprehend that they are contingent and that the universe itself is contingent.

Okay now I understand what you are trying to say. Thank you for that explanation, it was very good.

So if I understand it know( lets hope I do ), then this argument can only point to that the universe needs a primemover to come into existence and that this primemover( the uncontigent ) can be a god-like being or what lead to Big bang etc, but doesnt answer the question of whom of the possible scenarios are true.

Thats what I got out of it anyway.

[/quote]

You’re a quick learner florelius… it be non-contingent and be able to create is something most people would agree is something that could only belong to something ‘God-like’. It’s unique in that, those properties are unique to that alone, nothing else can have them. The regression necessitates that…
And you’re correct in that it does not answer what the scenarios are, they really could be anything. A universe, a multiverse, an existence of any kind existing forever, but they still ultimately depend on this non-contingent, contingency. The elegance it has is it can be applied to any scenario.

If you want to kind of ‘see it’ in action. Let’s take a look at matter, or it’s latest theories and presume they are true. So we know matter is mostly made up of space. That it’s made up of particles with weight, charge and movement. Then as current theories submit that these can be further reduced to singularities that move. Of course this reduces matter to basically pure energy and our sense perceive them as matter. You break it down further, you have a singularity, where’d it come from, how it come in to being. Now this singularity has frequency because of it’s oscillations, how does it move? Then you have to rules that guide its behavior ← this is metaphysics, but with out rules or laws or what not, this singularity cannot do what it does and do it consistently. What you get then is a hierarchy of rules and states that this singularity must adhere to. Not only does it has rules, those rules are enforced somehow, then you have to ask where these rules and guiding principles came from.

This regression can go on a while, but in the end you get to a state where something is dependent on something else that is not dependent.

Now causation can look two ways, one you can say, ‘The electricity caused the light bulb to emit light.’ ← That’s a normal temporal causal statement. A contingent causal statement would look like this ‘The light bulb emits light because of electricity’ ← in this statement, the temporal succession is removed.

I hope I made sense…It made sense in my head.

You made sense and it wasnt all in your head, so congrats you are sane afterall

[/quote]

Sorry about the quote tag debauchery, I did fix it but I guess it didn’t take, I corrected that string of wierd characters at the same time…

Anyway, I enjoy discussing things with you florelious, your calm demeanor and humility is very much appreciated and rare…

[TigerTime]

[quote]pat wrote:
Geez, why are you stalking me?[/quote]

You gave up your right to bitch about “stalking” 5 pages ago, Pat.

I’m not forcing you to respond to me. Frankly, I don’t know why you do when you seem to dead set against doing anything other than asserting your own correct-ness.

[florelius]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

That’s not the premise of the argument or else the conclusion would necessarily end up as an infinite regression which is a fallacy. The premise is that a contingent thing exists and that the reason or explanation for it does not reside in itself.[/quote]

Sorry, but this didnt make sense to me( could be because english is my second language and my grasp on english arent perfect ), so could you explain it further if possible?

If you don’t want to, that’s okay.

Contingency is most easily apprehended in terms of causality but not restricted to it. Michelangelo’s David is a contingent thing, it has a material cause(the block of marble) and an efficient cause(Michelangelo). It is shown to be contingent(could have failed to exist) in that its existence depends on external factors to itself and that it itself is not the reason for its existence but rather in the example I gave the reason for its existence are the two causes I described.

When one looks at many of the things and features of the universe they apprehend that they are contingent and that the universe itself is contingent.

Okay now I understand what you are trying to say. Thank you for that explanation, it was very good.

So if I understand it know( lets hope I do ), then this argument can only point to that the universe needs a primemover to come into existence and that this primemover( the uncontigent ) can be a god-like being or what lead to Big bang etc, but doesnt answer the question of whom of the possible scenarios are true.

Thats what I got out of it anyway.

[/quote]

You’re a quick learner florelius… it be non-contingent and be able to create is something most people would agree is something that could only belong to something ‘God-like’. It’s unique in that, those properties are unique to that alone, nothing else can have them. The regression necessitates that…
And you’re correct in that it does not answer what the scenarios are, they really could be anything. A universe, a multiverse, an existence of any kind existing forever, but they still ultimately depend on this non-contingent, contingency. The elegance it has is it can be applied to any scenario.

If you want to kind of ‘see it’ in action. Let’s take a look at matter, or it’s latest theories and presume they are true. So we know matter is mostly made up of space. That it’s made up of particles with weight, charge and movement. Then as current theories submit that these can be further reduced to singularities that move. Of course this reduces matter to basically pure energy and our sense perceive them as matter. You break it down further, you have a singularity, where’d it come from, how it come in to being. Now this singularity has frequency because of it’s oscillations, how does it move? Then you have to rules that guide its behavior ← this is metaphysics, but with out rules or laws or what not, this singularity cannot do what it does and do it consistently. What you get then is a hierarchy of rules and states that this singularity must adhere to. Not only does it has rules, those rules are enforced somehow, then you have to ask where these rules and guiding principles came from.

This regression can go on a while, but in the end you get to a state where something is dependent on something else that is not dependent.

Now causation can look two ways, one you can say, ‘The electricity caused the light bulb to emit light.’ ← That’s a normal temporal causal statement. A contingent causal statement would look like this ‘The light bulb emits light because of electricity’ ← in this statement, the temporal succession is removed.

I hope I made sense…It made sense in my head.

You made sense and it wasnt all in your head, so congrats you are sane afterall

[/quote]

Sorry about the quote tag debauchery, I did fix it but I guess it didn’t take, I corrected that string of wierd characters at the same time…

Anyway, I enjoy discussing things with you florelious, your calm demeanor and humility is very much appreciated and rare… [/quote]

the quote stuff can be a pain in the ass sometimes, so no worries.

Thank you and I try very hard to not come off as a dick, glad to see I am able to do that And you seem to be a reasonable guy yourself Pat and I think all our discussions have been good without any name calling etc, that is also a reflection of your demeanor. It takes two to tango as they say.

When it comes to our discussion here I am not shure if we disagree so much, so I dont know what to say next regarding the topic LOL

[Tiribulus]

florelius wrote:<<< Logic does not in anyway point to a god or gods for that matter >>>

[florelius]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

florelius wrote:<<< Logic does not in anyway point to a god or gods for that matter >>>

[/quote]

I need to read up on philosophy to be able to contribute anything of substance in that thread. Give me a year and maybe I am knowledgeable enough to discuss epistemology.

Also arent Kamui the friggin philosopy proffesor in there, I cant match that man haha…

thanks for the invite though

ps. About my statement you quoted: I think I was wrong for saying that and after some thought there are probably possible to construct logic arguments for the existence of god.
As an agnostic it doesnt hurt to admit this and my agnosticism are rather based on the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of god or gods.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]florelius wrote:<<< I need to read up on philosophy to be able to contribute anything of substance in that thread. >>>[/quote]Nah. All you need is a brain and a pulse. You have both. [quote]florelius wrote:<<>>[/quote]You already use it every second of your life. That’s the point. You have all the knowledge you need. You’ve just never consciously considered it. [quote]florelius wrote:<<< my agnosticism are rather based on the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of god or gods.[/quote]He’s staring you right in the face. Everywhere. That’s also the point. No pressure. Your participation would be interesting is all.