Jump to content


Photo

Proof Of An Intelligent Uncaused Cause - God


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
278 replies to this topic

#41 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:11 AM

1. I was not trying to relegate God to mere physical law.

2. I was pointing out that it was quite convenient that this logical exercise imbued the God with properties that made It immune to the limits placed on an eternal mindless universe. That would be called special pleading.

3. Are you saying that infinite regress of events is an impossibility? Why is it impossible? Is eternity impossible? If eternity is possible, then is it possible that events can occur throughout eternity? If not, then how is it you plan on worshiping God in heaven throughout eternity. Isn't worshiping an event?

4. In regard to the other thread, I didn't claim that reactions occur when the reactants are not close together. In fact, in an earlier post in that thread, I said that reactions occur spontaneously if the reactants are close together. Y

5. You stated that spontaneous reactions don't occur in nature. In the post that you questioned,

6. I asked you to define spontaneous reaction

7. and sarcastically stated that you probably believed that spontaneous chemical reactions were ones that occurred without the chemical reactants close together.

8. Your reply to that post made me realize that we are not communicating effectively and it would be best if I tried to figure out how to write a post that you could understand. When I do figure it out, I will reply to that post.


1. Ummmm yes you were....

2. You've just supported my point 1.... Additionally its not special pleading since that is what God is. God is supernatural hence you literally cannot attempt to conform God to the standards that are required by natural laws, conversely your claims ARE required to conform to natural laws since you are stating a natural cause, nature conforms to natural law (thus it is limited in its action), God is supernatural and is therefore unlimited in his potential action. This is not special pleading, this is merely understanding what God is and what natural uncaused things are, they are totaly different things so it really is stupid to try and make one fit the others rules.

3. An infinite regress in the past IS logically impossible since there is no begining, did you not READ my post? (yet again I ask you to read and comprehend my post before replying). Eternity in the future is totally different since the future has yet to come to pass, meaning that it can indeed go on (since we do not know of a end point (thus far), whereas in relation to the past there is indeed and end point, that being the creation of the universe (which has been verfied by science!!!). If there was a begining then its not an INFINITE regress. So you can comprehend my point here

- Infinite regress in the past implies no start point since its infinite
- Infinite regress to the future is possible since the future is yet to occur, additionally its not a REGRESS since a regress is a past tense action.
- Science has verified that the universe did have a begining
- Therefore there is no infinite regress since there is a begining point meaning the regress in the past is not infinite... It does end.
- Therefore you're attempts here defy logic and the established scientific evidence, I challenge you to find scientific evidence that refutes that of a begining of the universe, as well as supports there being an eternal past.


4. Absolute lies! I stated that the concentration of reactants was not enough due to the ocean being vast, you stated that perhaps the reactions occured where the reactants were not required to be in close proximity, (to which I pointed out was not what a reaction is since it requires physical contact with enough velocity to account for the activation energy required of the reaction).

Considering that you have yet to reply to this in the thread, with a quote, suggests that you are indeed making things up here. If it was this simple why avoid replying?

5. Actually I said the opposite, hence why I stated "Absolute lies". Spontanteous reactions occur however they do so to increase the chaos of the system, that is why they are spontaneous in that they fit within the 2nd law dealing with entropy. I was saying that a reaction that reverses entropy is not spontaneous, not that spontaneous reactions do not happen, again this is yet another instance where you need to read and comprehend my post....

6. As I said I use the definition of spontaneous as per any other person.

7. Convienient that you state this now, AFTER I demonstrated the absolute idiocy of the claim and how it defies how reactions work in nature. Why not reply to this in the thread? In fact you never stated that I believed in this, I stated that the concentration of reactants was not enough due to the ocean being vast, you stated that perhaps the reactions occured where the reactants were not required to be in close proximity, (to which I pointed out was not what a reaction is since it requires physical contact with enough velocity to account for the activation energy required of the reaction)... There was no mention of me believing in this, nor any mention of sarcasm, (except after the fact... aka covering ones tracks)

8. Really.... Sounds like a lame excuse to me. SInce if you felt as such you wouldn't be replying now..... Kinda defies the point eh.


Yes it would be best if we continued this on the thread since you can actually QUOTE me rather than make claims which are either misrepresentations or outright lies.
  • goldliger likes this

#42 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 02 November 2012 - 01:41 PM

//I haven't been talking about physical vs immaterial, merely infinity/endless spans in either case. What's the difference between infinity in a immaterial realm vs infinity in a physical realm? You seem to be saying infinity can be traversed in one but not the other, yet something endless is endless by definition, regardless of physical or non-physical status.//

Yes, that is what I'm saying...

Again, we know that infinite physical events cannot be traversed. Refer back to my book analogy, where in fact I have already shown logically why traversing physical events is impossible. It should be quite obvious though, shouldn't it? If you were told to do endless physical tasks you'd never get to the last task (the "last task" representing our present time). It doesn't help your case to keep parroting that you disagree. You would need to demonstrate how infinite physical events could be crossed, to get to the present moment - or why my logic is not valid. So I await your explanation. And here's something else you must consider: In an eternal existence (where something exists forever), there are only two types of realities... Immaterial, and material. Since we're here in the present, and since we know that an infinite number of material events cannot be crossed, we can logically conclude that there is no such issue with so-called immaterial "events" (which obviously aren't physical events at all). When there are only two options, if one doesn't work, the other option must logically be true.

See bolded portions. The reason your logic is invalid is because you are saying that reaching the end of infinity is both logically possible and logically impossible. It can't be both.
If something is logically impossible it's logically impossible in all realms. You can't say that 'reaching the end of something endless' is logically impossible by definition then turn around and say 'reaching the end of something endless' is logically possible in a immaterial realm. The definition of 'end' and 'endless' don't change in a immaterial realm do they?

//You've added the condition of material existence. My question was solely related to mindless or not mindless. Why is a mindless, non-material entity incapable of producing separate timelines?//

I've addressed both material and immaterial. Here again:

Now, what if one suggest's that a "mindless something" from another dimension caused our universe? Well first, it would have to be an immaterial something, because if it was a material something we'd again have the problem of infinite physical regress. But if a mindless immaterial something came before our universe (such that this mindless something could cause our universe), you'd again have a "first event" problem:

Regarding the issue of infinite physical universes. Based on your ideas about god spanning a eternal immaterial realm, would you agree that god can make an infinite number of choices? If greater than 0% of those choices produced physical universes that would mean an infinite number of physical universes, correct? If an infinite number of physical universes is impossible, that must mean that there's something enforcing a finite limit on the number of universes that god can create regardless of his will or intelligence. Why would such a limit be able to restrict god to a finite number of universes but not be able to restrict a non-intelligent force to a finite number of universes? If the same limit restricts the behavior of both intelligent and non-intelligent forces then there would be no problem of a non-intelligent force creating a infinite number of universes.

An alternative option would be that an infinite number of universes is not necessarily the same thing as infinite regress. Infinite regress typically involves a series of dependent steps, where A1 depends on A2, A2 depends on A3,etc. For a eternal non-intelligent source B this would be more like A1 depends on B, A2 depends on B, A3 depends on B, etc. there's no infinite regress if the chain of dependency stops at B.


//Your website also says that it would violate the nature of the mindless thing. Imagine a eternal coin that could flip itself with one special property. After 10,000 heads in a row it produces a physical universe and stops flipping. This would produce a single universe over a infinite time span without violating it's nature.//

10,000 flips is a finite number of flips, which by default requires a first flip (first change). This leaves an infinite/endless amount of time prior to the first flip, and we're right back to my premises. Also, as you have probably noticed, physical events have not stopped happening just because the universe is here. Posted Image

But you've argued that reaching the end of an endless amount of time is possible in a immaterial realm, so we are not back at your premises. Perhaps I should have been clearer that this hypothetical eternal entity/coin/whatever exists in a immaterial realm with whatever you feel that implies for traversing infinite immaterial steps. The only difference from god is a lack of intelligence and a default, non-intelligent trigger that results in a finite number of universes created.

I'm afraid I don't know what that last sentence is supposed to mean, I wasn't saying anything about what happens within a particular universe.

#43 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 02 November 2012 - 05:33 PM

//It is special pleading because you have claimed that this God you constructed has special powers that make him immune to the logic you use to eliminate the possibility of an eternal but changing universe.//

Nope. You are begging the question by assuming that I "constructed God" and am therefore special pleading. God is not exempt from my logic. Rather, my logic proves God's existence. Quite different.

//Then you are claiming that if the universe existed eternally, that no events could occur at all because there was no first event? Why is an infinite regress of physical events impossible?//

See above. I'm not going to answer your question again.

//Again with the special God thing. In order for matter and energy to change they do not need to cause physical events outside of matter and energy. The Sun changes matter into energy without causing any physical events outside of matter or energy. If this is occurring now, so what would prevent it from happening if the universe were an eternal thing?//

That's right, matter and energy do not need to cause events outside of matter and energy. Nor can they. That was precisely my point.

//What makes you think an eternal universe would have only empty space? Time and space contain matter and/or energy. Matter and energy can cause physical change.//

I don't think that it would be empty space. Where did I say that? I said that it if there were empty space prior to matter (as you implied could be a possibility), no physical change could occur.

#44 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:39 PM

//See bolded portions. The reason your logic is invalid is because you are saying that reaching the end of infinity is both logically possible and logically impossible. It can't be both.//

It's your logic that is invalid, actually. A. We know that something had to exist eternally. B. Either this something was material, or immaterial. C. This means that either the material something, or immaterial something, must have "traversed" infinity at some point. D. We know that infinite physical events cannot be traversed. E. Therefore, it must be that so-called immaterial "events" can be traversed to achieve physical events. Simple.

//If something is logically impossible it's logically impossible in all realms. You can't say that 'reaching the end of something endless' is logically impossible by definition then turn around and say 'reaching the end of something endless' is logically possible in a immaterial realm. The definition of 'end' and 'endless' don't change in a immaterial realm do they?//

It's not logically impossible, and we know that because we exist. And yes indeed I can say that one thing is impossible but not the other. See above.

//Regarding the issue of infinite physical universes. Based on your ideas about god spanning a eternal immaterial realm, would you agree that god can make an infinite number of choices? If greater than 0% of those choices produced physical universes that would mean an infinite number of physical universes, correct? If an infinite number of physical universes is impossible, that must mean that there's something enforcing a finite limit on the number of universes that god can create regardless of his will or intelligence. Why would such a limit be able to restrict god to a finite number of universes but not be able to restrict a non-intelligent force to a finite number of universes? If the same limit restricts the behavior of both intelligent and non-intelligent forces then there would be no problem of a non-intelligent force creating a infinite number of universes.//

There is no issue here. The impossible infinite regress applies to a mindless uncaused cause (for all reasons given thus far). God could create as many universes as He chooses. There isn't some mysterious limiting factor, as you suggest. The limiting factor is simply His choice. If you choose to bake one cake and not ten, that's your choice. I could go on, but this already refutes your point.

//An alternative option would be that an infinite number of universes is not necessarily the same thing as infinite regress. Infinite regress typically involves a series of dependent steps, where A1 depends on A2, A2 depends on A3,etc. For a eternal non-intelligent source B this would be more like A1 depends on B, A2 depends on B, A3 depends on B, etc. there's no infinite regress if the chain of dependency stops at B.//

This option fails. In this situation, the mindless something would need to cause events "outside of itself", which is not possible with matter and energy (a materialistic existence). It is matter and energy which need to change, such that change can occur - and therefore all changes are interdependent. And if we suggest that an immaterial something is causing physical events outside of itself, such that they are not interdependent, then you're back to the "first event" problem. Of course, we can also observe our universe, and see that physical events are interdependent (cause and effect). In other words, that's how things work, and therefore you're suggesting something that is not based on reality.

//But you've argued that reaching the end of an endless amount of time is possible in a immaterial realm, so we are not back at your premises. Perhaps I should have been clearer that this hypothetical eternal entity/coin/whatever exists in a immaterial realm with whatever you feel that implies for traversing infinite immaterial steps. The only difference from god is a lack of intelligence and a default, non-intelligent trigger that results in a finite number of universes created.//

Ok, so here again we have an immaterial something (the coin), supposedly reaching a physical event after enough flips. And because the immaterial coin causes a physical event, it's an event on a separate plane (material separate from immaterial). First I should note that you're already granting a supernatural, immaterial, eternal, all-powerful something. Congratulations, you've just described God (aside from intelligence). But the problem with your analogy, once again, is that this leaves an eternity of flips prior to the physical event. In other words, an eternity of no physical change - not by choice, but by chance (or rather, no chance at all). And that leads back to the fatal "first event" problem:

"Imagine that this mindless, immaterial something (your coin) has always existed. And we'd have to say that it existed before any and all physical events (such that it could cause them), which by default would mean that a first physical event had to occur at some point - or there could not be a "before". (In this scenario, the first event would be relative to the pre-existing immaterial thing.) Now, if a first physical event were able to come about, it would mean that the mindless immaterial something had an infinite history (prior to the first event) of producing no physical events whatsoever. But because this infinite, unchanging past would not be the result of will or choice, it could only result from the default nature of the mindless something. And if this default nature has been fixed for eternity, there is zero probability that it could ever change! In other words, the default nature of "unchange" could never end, such that a first physical event could then occur."

A mindless something that has had infinite chances to produce change, but has not, cannot then change given another chance - because it's already been given another chance, and another, and infinitely more (as many chances as possible), and has remained unchanged.

  • gilbo12345 likes this

#45 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:24 PM

//See bolded portions. The reason your logic is invalid is because you are saying that reaching the end of infinity is both logically possible and logically impossible. It can't be both.//

It's your logic that is invalid, actually. A. We know that something had to exist eternally. B. Either this something was material, or immaterial. C. This means that either the material something, or immaterial something, must have "traversed" infinity at some point. D. We know that infinite physical events cannot be traversed. E. Therefore, it must be that so-called immaterial "events" can be traversed to achieve physical events. Simple.

The reason you've given for D being correct is that it would involve reaching the end of a endless series. However if E is correct, D must be wrong since it would have to be possible to reach the end of a endless series. D and E can't both be valid statements. Either reaching the end of an endless series is logically possible or logically impossible. If it's logically impossible then it's irrelevant whether you are discussing physical or non-physical things. If it's logically possible then there's no logical reason for D to be a true statement.

//If something is logically impossible it's logically impossible in all realms. You can't say that 'reaching the end of something endless' is logically impossible by definition then turn around and say 'reaching the end of something endless' is logically possible in a immaterial realm. The definition of 'end' and 'endless' don't change in a immaterial realm do they?//

It's not logically impossible, and we know that because we exist. And yes indeed I can say that one thing is impossible but not the other. See above.

What is the difference between reaching the end of physical things that never end vs reaching the end of non-physical things that never end? Both are impossible by the definition of 'end' and 'never end'.

Think of it this way, if god decided to make a universe after finishing reciting all the digits of pi to himself, will a universe ever be created? (note: there is no last digit of pi)

//Regarding the issue of infinite physical universes. Based on your ideas about god spanning a eternal immaterial realm, would you agree that god can make an infinite number of choices? If greater than 0% of those choices produced physical universes that would mean an infinite number of physical universes, correct? If an infinite number of physical universes is impossible, that must mean that there's something enforcing a finite limit on the number of universes that god can create regardless of his will or intelligence. Why would such a limit be able to restrict god to a finite number of universes but not be able to restrict a non-intelligent force to a finite number of universes? If the same limit restricts the behavior of both intelligent and non-intelligent forces then there would be no problem of a non-intelligent force creating a infinite number of universes.//

There is no issue here. The impossible infinite regress applies to a mindless uncaused cause (for all reasons given thus far). God could create as many universes as He chooses. There isn't some mysterious limiting factor, as you suggest. The limiting factor is simply His choice. If you choose to bake one cake and not ten, that's your choice. I could go on, but this already refutes your point.

Can god choose to make a infinite series of physical universes? If you think D (above) is true, then he couldn't since any individual physical universe would be at the end of a endless number of previous physical universes and you claim it's impossible to iterate through that infinite number of physical universes to get to the current one. That means that either D is wrong or there's some limitation on the number of universes god can choose to make.

//An alternative option would be that an infinite number of universes is not necessarily the same thing as infinite regress. Infinite regress typically involves a series of dependent steps, where A1 depends on A2, A2 depends on A3,etc. For a eternal non-intelligent source B this would be more like A1 depends on B, A2 depends on B, A3 depends on B, etc. there's no infinite regress if the chain of dependency stops at B.//

This option fails. In this situation, the mindless something would need to cause events "outside of itself", which is not possible with matter and energy (a materialistic existence). It is matter and energy which need to change, such that change can occur - and therefore all changes are interdependent. And if we suggest that an immaterial something is causing physical events outside of itself, such that they are not interdependent, then you're back to the "first event" problem. Of course, we can also observe our universe, and see that physical events are interdependent (cause and effect). In other words, that's how things work, and therefore you're suggesting something that is not based on reality.

I'm not clear on how you are getting a first event problem for a infinite number of universes but not getting a first event problem for a infinite number of god's decisions. If there must be a first universe wouldn't there need to be a first decision? If a first universe is impossible because of a prior eternity without a universe, wouldn't a first decision be impossible because of a prior eternity without a decision?

....
"Imagine that this mindless, immaterial something (your coin) has always existed. And we'd have to say that it existed before any and all physical events (such that it could cause them), which by default would mean that a first physical event had to occur at some point - or there could not be a "before". (In this scenario, the first event would be relative to the pre-existing immaterial thing.) Now, if a first physical event were able to come about, it would mean that the mindless immaterial something had an infinite history (prior to the first event) of producing no physical events whatsoever. But because this infinite, unchanging past would not be the result of will or choice, it could only result from the default nature of the mindless something. And if this default nature has been fixed for eternity, there is zero probability that it could ever change! In other words, the default nature of "unchange" could never end, such that a first physical event could then occur."
....



This basically goes back to 'E' above. You've said that a infinite series of events can be traversed in a immaterial realm. You are suggesting that god chooses to say 'no' to creating a universe for a infinite amount of time before then saying 'yes'. However, in a infinite amount of time every possible event will occur an infinite number of times. That would mean every possible event/thought/mood/etc. that could cause god to change his mind and say 'yes' would have occurred an infinite number of times. If the default nature of a coin is established by it's behavior over a infinite time period and if god always says 'no' under any and all circumstances over an infinite time period doesn't that indicate that his default nature is to say 'no'? After forever, if god says 'yes' to creating a universe isn't that a violation of the default nature previously established? There could be no reason for god to say 'yes' that had not previously occurred in the prior eternity where he said 'no'.

#46 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 03 November 2012 - 11:02 AM

Occams razor anyone?

#47 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 03 November 2012 - 02:55 PM

Occams razor anyone?

zeno's paradox is more relevant.
http://en.wikipedia....chotomy_paradox

Suppose Homer wants to catch a stationary bus. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.
This description requires one to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains is an impossibility.
This sequence also presents a second problem in that it contains no first distance to run, for any possible (finite) first distance could be divided in half, and hence would not be first after all. Hence, the trip cannot even begin. The paradoxical conclusion then would be that travel over any finite distance can neither be completed nor begun, and so all motion must be an illusion.

#48 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 03 November 2012 - 02:59 PM

zeno's paradox is more relevant.
http://en.wikipedia....chotomy_paradox

Suppose Homer wants to catch a stationary bus. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.
This description requires one to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains is an impossibility.
This sequence also presents a second problem in that it contains no first distance to run, for any possible (finite) first distance could be divided in half, and hence would not be first after all. Hence, the trip cannot even begin. The paradoxical conclusion then would be that travel over any finite distance can neither be completed nor begun, and so all motion must be an illusion.


And this is for natural things.... Then how can it be applied to the supernatural? You're trying to compare apples to oranges.

Supernatural means "above nature" in that its above natural law, therefore laws and rules that apply to this physical plane of existence do not apply to something that is above them.

#49 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 03 November 2012 - 04:11 PM

Would valid laws of logic be applying to both of them what you call natural as well as supernatural.

#50 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 03 November 2012 - 05:43 PM

//The reason you've given for D being correct is that it would involve reaching the end of a endless series. However if E is correct, D must be wrong since it would have to be possible to reach the end of a endless series. D and E can't both be valid statements. Either reaching the end of an endless series is logically possible or logically impossible. If it's logically impossible then it's irrelevant whether you are discussing physical or non-physical things. If it's logically possible then there's no logical reason for D to be a true statement.//

Why do you keep parroting the same argument? Points A, B, and C demonstrate why D and E must be true. In order to maintain your argument you need to go ahead and demonstrate how infinite events could be traversed in a mindless existence. I'll await your reply, in this regard.

When I say that immaterial events can be traversed, that applies to God only, btw. And that's because He's not actually traversing anything...

Let's momentarily imagine that some form of energy is the "immaterial" uncaused cause of all existence. First of all, it must be said that this eternal energy was constantly fluctuating and changing thoughout its supposed eternal existence, in order for any change or future event could come about. (A "first change" wouldn't be possible, because it would mean an eternity of no change prior, in which case no change at all could occur.) And each and every one of these fluctuations is an "immaterial event" (represented by a chance draw of cards), that must be traversed to "reach" a physical event. But of course, this means that an (impossible) infinite regress of immaterial events would be required in order to reach the present time.

An intelligent being, on the other hand, does not have to traverse an endless amount of "chance changes" to get to any event. In fact, it does not have to traverse anything at all in order to "get to" a physical event. Rather, a first event occurs precisely when the intelligent being chooses. Any lack of first events is also a choice. So (first) events do not happen as a result of 1 chance in 10. Or 1 chance in 1 trillion. Etc. There is no chance involved at all.




//What is the difference between reaching the end of physical things that never end vs reaching the end of non-physical things that never end? Both are impossible by the definition of 'end' and 'never end'.//

Again, just parroting the same argument. When the eternal nature of something is "x" (as demonstrated by an eternity past), it cannot then change. For example, if the eternal (unending) nature of a mindless immaterial thing is that of not producing physical events, then by definition, said nature cannot end. God's nature is one of being able to produce change at any time - as a matter of choice. Thus, His nature does not have to "end" in order to produce a physical change, even if He's never produced one in the past.

//Can god choose to make a infinite series of physical universes? If you think D (above) is true, then he couldn't since any individual physical universe would be at the end of a endless number of previous physical universes and you claim it's impossible to iterate through that infinite number of physical universes to get to the current one. That means that either D is wrong or there's some limitation on the number of universes god can choose to make.//

False. God can create as many universes as He chooses, and as such, the universes are not "past dependent". It's very simple. If you were God, would the events that you cause depend on the past? Nope. Conversely, events in a mindless existence are past dependent (whether material or immaterial).

//I'm not clear on how you are getting a first event problem for a infinite number of universes but not getting a first event problem for a infinite number of god's decisions. If there must be a first universe wouldn't there need to be a first decision? If a first universe is impossible because of a prior eternity without a universe, wouldn't a first decision be impossible because of a prior eternity without a decision?//

In a mindless existence, all events (whether material or immaterial) happen as a result ofa constantly changing past, which leads to an impossible infinite regression. In such an existence, no event can occur which is entirely independent from the past, because all things ultimately happen according to a chain of chance and probabilities (and are therefore "past dependent"). In an intelligent existence, events can occur which do not depend on the past, as an act of choice. An (impossible) infinite regression only "occurs" when one event after another depends on an eternal past. Therefore, a mindless existence must be rejected. And an intelligent existence must be accepted.

//This basically goes back to 'E' above. You've said that a infinite series of events can be traversed in a immaterial realm. You are suggesting that god chooses to say 'no' to creating a universe for a infinite amount of time before then saying 'yes'. However, in a infinite amount of time every possible event will occur an infinite number of times. That would mean every possible event/thought/mood/etc. that could cause god to change his mind and say 'yes' would have occurred an infinite number of times. If the default nature of a coin is established by it's behavior over a infinite time period and if god always says 'no' under any and all circumstances over an infinite time period doesn't that indicate that his default nature is to say 'no'? After forever, if god says 'yes' to creating a universe isn't that a violation of the default nature previously established? There could be no reason for god to say 'yes' that had not previously occurred in the prior eternity where he said 'no'.//

Non sequitur. An intelligent being with will and choice would not have to cycle through all decisions possible. You must know better than to suggest otherwise?

#51 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 03 November 2012 - 07:12 PM

Would valid laws of logic be applying to both of them what you call natural as well as supernatural.


One would think, however it is my belief that God is too vast for any mortal to comprehend fully hence what we deem "laws of logic" may not apply since we cannot comprehend how they would apply to something that is not fully knowable.

#52 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 03 November 2012 - 07:15 PM

False. God can create as many universes as He chooses, and as such, the universes are not "past dependent". It's very simple. If you were God, would the events that you cause depend on the past? Nope. Conversely, events in a mindless existence are past dependent (whether material or immaterial).


Therein lies the power of choice, whereby the actions of God are independant of other factors and are solely dependant on his own will. Thus we can claim that if God exists it must be a personal agent in order to make a choice.

#53 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 03 November 2012 - 09:17 PM

//The reason you've given for D being correct is that it would involve reaching the end of a endless series. However if E is correct, D must be wrong since it would have to be possible to reach the end of a endless series. D and E can't both be valid statements. Either reaching the end of an endless series is logically possible or logically impossible. If it's logically impossible then it's irrelevant whether you are discussing physical or non-physical things. If it's logically possible then there's no logical reason for D to be a true statement.//

Why do you keep parroting the same argument? Points A, B, and C demonstrate why D and E must be true. In order to maintain your argument you need to go ahead and demonstrate how infinite physical events could be traversed in a mindless existence. I'll await your reply, in this regard.

I keep telling you that D and E cannot be true because that's how logic works. Do you agree that god is limited by logic (i.e. can't create a square circle?). You've argued that reaching the end of infinity is logically impossible by definition. Since the definitions don't change, that means it has to be logically impossible for god as well if your argument is true. If it's possible for god then it can't be logically impossible, unless you feel logic doesn't apply to god.

See previous post about zeno's paradox. 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16... = 1. This is a summation of infinite terms that is accomplished in a finite physical universe.

//Can god choose to make a infinite series of physical universes? If you think D (above) is true, then he couldn't since any individual physical universe would be at the end of a endless number of previous physical universes and you claim it's impossible to iterate through that infinite number of physical universes to get to the current one. That means that either D is wrong or there's some limitation on the number of universes god can choose to make.//

False. God can create as many universes as He chooses, and as such, the universes are not "past dependent". It's very simple. If you were God, would the events that you cause depend on the past? Nope. Conversely, events in a mindless existence are past dependent (whether material or immaterial).

You didn't answer the question.

Assuming god can make a infinite number of choices...

1.) Can god choose to create a infinite series of physical universes? (to tailor the question to your post let's say that god's actions take the form of "choose to create a universe, choose to end it, choose to create another" which means each universe depends on the previous one ending)
2.) If yes, would that constitute a infinite number of past-dependent physical events?
3.) If yes, is each universe preceded by a infinite number of past-dependent physical events?
4.) If yes, what is your basis for then claiming that a infinite number of past-dependent physical events is impossible for a mindless force?

//I'm not clear on how you are getting a first event problem for a infinite number of universes but not getting a first event problem for a infinite number of god's decisions. If there must be a first universe wouldn't there need to be a first decision? If a first universe is impossible because of a prior eternity without a universe, wouldn't a first decision be impossible because of a prior eternity without a decision?//

In a mindless existence, all events (whether material or immaterial) happen as a result ofa constantly changing past, which leads to an impossible infinite regression. In such an existence, no event can occur which is entirely independent from the past, because all things ultimately happen according to a chain of chance and probabilities (and are therefore "past dependent"). In an intelligent existence, events can occur which do not depend on the past, as an act of choice. An (impossible) infinite regression only "occurs" when one event after another depends on an eternal past. Therefore, a mindless existence must be rejected. And an intelligent existence must be accepted.


What is your basis for assuming that chosen events are not determined by the past? If you had complete knowledge of the state of my brain and the sensory information presented to it, all my future choices should be predictable and dependent on my present/past state.

#54 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 03 November 2012 - 09:42 PM

1. I keep telling you that D and E cannot be true because that's how logic works.

2. Do you agree that god is limited by logic (i.e. can't create a square circle?).

3. You've argued that reaching the end of infinity is logically impossible by definition. Since the definitions don't change, that means it has to be logically impossible for god as well if your argument is true. If it's possible for god then it can't be logically impossible, unless you feel logic doesn't apply to god.

4. See previous post about zeno's paradox. 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16... = 1. This is a summation of infinite terms that is accomplished in a finite physical universe.


5. Assuming god can make a infinite number of choices...

1.) Can god choose to create a infinite series of physical universes? (to tailor the question to your post let's say that god's actions take the form of "choose to create a universe, choose to end it, choose to create another" which means each universe depends on the previous one ending)
2.) If yes, would that constitute a infinite number of past-dependent physical events?
3.) If yes, is each universe preceded by a infinite number of past-dependent physical events?
4.) If yes, what is your basis for then claiming that a infinite number of past-dependent physical events is impossible for a mindless force?



What is your basis for assuming that chosen events are not determined by the past? If you had complete knowledge of the state of my brain and the sensory information presented to it, all my future choices should be predictable and dependent on my present/past state.


1. You are assuming here that you know all there is to "how logic works", otherwise you cannot make such a blanket statement. If you do not know eveything then you cannot make such a claim.

2. Pertaining to what we deem "laws of logic"? Perhaps there is more to the universe than we can ever hope to comprehend... The problem here is that you're assuming that we know everything, sorry to burst your bubble we don't know everything. Additionally a square circle isn't a problem of logic, its a problem of definitions a circle by definition is round with no straight edges or lines etc whereas a square has straight lines with edges (yes even rounded edges)... Hence your analogy is a false one ;)

3. Reaching infinity (in the past I assume) is logically impossible from a naturalistic point of view, however this doesn't convey that God is defined on the laws of logic nor does it allow you to mix terms and compare God with the natural world. The main thing you need to understand, (which is what I have been trying to define in my other posts) is that you cannot compare God with anything else that is not God, to do so is comparing apples with oranges and really that is stupid.

4. =1 isn't infinite... =1 is equal to 1.... Not infinity.... Fail.

5. God has that potential but doesn't mean he is restricted to doing such, hence the power of choice

A- If God wished to do so
B- Assuming that such a thing occured then NO, since it would only be infinte as long as God chooses to do such into the future... You're totally off track here you're trying to pose the potential infinite future of something with an infinite past. I have already written that if there is an infinite past then there is no beginning which is patently absurd. God can choose to continue creating infinte universes however such would be into the future since the future is an undefined amount of time which can potentially go unto infinity
C- No, see your failure to realise that if something can continue for infinity (into the future) doesn't mean there is an infinite past
D- Because an infinite past imples no start point which defies all logic pertaining to natural laws, within nature everything begins from something, you don't get something for nothing, etc... Therefore it is the natural law (which naturalists state is the be-all-end-all of truth) is what debunks your claims... Sad really since the naturalists own rules debunk their ideology.... Its very silly to me.
  • goldliger likes this

#55 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 03 November 2012 - 10:48 PM

//I keep telling you that D and E cannot be true because that's how logic works. Do you agree that god is limited by logic (i.e. can't create a square circle?). You've argued that reaching the end of infinity is logically impossible by definition. Since the definitions don't change, that means it has to be logically impossible for god as well if your argument is true. If it's possible for god then it can't be logically impossible, unless you feel logic doesn't apply to god.//

That's simply not correct (and is also a strawman of what I've been explaining). You are assuming that all scenarios are identical, such that logic applies to all of them in exactly the same way. It's sort of like saying that because the earth is a large round object in space, we can think about it in exactly the same way as the moon. Mindless causation is entirely different from intelligent causation. And a material cause is different from an immaterial cause.

Again, God doesn't actually have to traverse infinite events! (Refer again to my last reply.)

//See previous post about zeno's paradox. 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16... = 1. This is a summation of infinite terms that is accomplished in a finite physical universe.//

I'm very familiar with Zeno's paradox. It is a case where mathematics doesn't match up with the real world. Here's the difference: In the real world, we can walk the distance between two points, despite supposed infinite fractions between them. But we could never walk the distance between two points that are an infinite distance apart. The latter scenario applies to a real world infinite regress, whereas Zeno's paradox has no relation whatsoever.

//Assuming god can make a infinite number of choices...

1.) Can god choose to create a infinite series of physical universes? (to tailor the question to your post let's say that god's actions take the form of "choose to create a universe, choose to end it, choose to create another" which means each universe depends on the previous one ending)
2.) If yes, would that constitute a infinite number of past-dependent physical events?
3.) If yes, is each universe preceded by a infinite number of past-dependent physical events?
4.) If yes, what is your basis for then claiming that a infinite number of past-dependent physical events is impossible for a mindless force?//


Very simple answer. Even if God created an infinite number of events, it wouldn't violate an infinite regress because of reasons I've already covered. Please read both of these paragraphs several times over if you wouldn't mind (it will save time going over the same stuff):

In a mindless existence, all events (whether material or immaterial) happen as the result of a constantly changing past, which leads to an impossible infinite regression. In such an existence, no event can occur which is entirely independent from the past, because all things ultimately happen according to a chain of chance and probabilities (and are therefore past dependent). In an intelligent existence, events occur which do not depend on the past, as an act of choice. The "first mover" events that God causes are a matter of choice (dependent on God and not other events), and are therefore not past dependent. An (impossible) infinite regression only "occurs" when one event depends on a prior event, which depends on another prior event, and so on, to infinity. Therefore, a mindless existence must be rejected. And an intelligent existence must be accepted.

Here is what an impossible infinite regression looks like: Change 1 leads to change 2 leads to change 3 leads to change 4 leads to "group of changes" 5 leads to many more changes 6 leads to further spreading change 7, etc., to infinity. Change 7, for example, could never be reached if an infinite number of changes came before! Now here is what intelligent causation looks like: Change 1 depends on God, change 2 depends on God and not change 1, change 3 depends on God and not change 2, change 4 depends on God and not change 3, change 5 depends on God and not change 4, change 6 depends on God and not change 5, change 7 depends on God and not change 6 (nor any of the prior changes), etc.


//What is your basis for assuming that chosen events are not determined by the past? If you had complete knowledge of the state of my brain and the sensory information presented to it, all my future choices should be predictable and dependent on my present/past state.//

The most simple way to illustrate this (in addition to directly above), is once again to imagine yourself in God's shoes: You've existed for eternity, but what matters is that you exist... Could you, at any given moment, cause an event - despite anything that you've done prior? Of course! Here is the key: The event that you cause at such a moment is not dependent on an infinite regress of past events. Rather, it was dependent on your decision at that precise moment to cause the event, and your ability at that precise moment to cause the event. Yes, there were other past events, but they too were the result of choice (and therefore not "past dependent" in one giant/endless causal chain).

I've got a question for you... Do you want to believe in God? Are you really seeking Him? I'm afraid it doesn't really seem so, based on this discussion. I think it's pretty clear you're looking to ESCAPE belief in God, rather than find belief in God. That's pretty sad, if so! You're in trouble. Now is the time to turn things around before it's too late. Change before you have to, my friend!

#56 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 04 November 2012 - 09:58 AM

I think this is going in circles so I'll let this be my final post on the topic unless you specifically request an answer to something.



//I keep telling you that D and E cannot be true because that's how logic works. Do you agree that god is limited by logic (i.e. can't create a square circle?). You've argued that reaching the end of infinity is logically impossible by definition. Since the definitions don't change, that means it has to be logically impossible for god as well if your argument is true. If it's possible for god then it can't be logically impossible, unless you feel logic doesn't apply to god.//

That's simply not correct (and is also a strawman of what I've been explaining). You are assuming that all scenarios are identical, such that logic applies to all of them in exactly the same way. It's sort of like saying that because the earth is a large round object in space, we can think about it in exactly the same way as the moon. Mindless causation is entirely different from intelligent causation. And a material cause is different from an immaterial cause.

Again, God doesn't actually have to traverse infinite events! (Refer again to my last reply.)


Your exact words were:
This means that either the material something, or immaterial something, must have "traversed" infinity at some point. D. We know that infinite physical events cannot be traversed. E. Therefore, it must be that so-called immaterial "events" can be traversed to achieve physical events

It doesn't matter if god doesn't have to. Your claim is that it (traversing infinity, reaching the end of a endless period, counting down from infinity, etc.) can be done under some set of conditions. If it can be done at all, it's not logically impossible. If it's not logically impossible for god, as long as logic is the same for both god and not-god, then it's not logically impossible for not-god.

//Assuming god can make a infinite number of choices...

1.) Can god choose to create a infinite series of physical universes? (to tailor the question to your post let's say that god's actions take the form of "choose to create a universe, choose to end it, choose to create another" which means each universe depends on the previous one ending)
2.) If yes, would that constitute a infinite number of past-dependent physical events?
3.) If yes, is each universe preceded by a infinite number of past-dependent physical events?
4.) If yes, what is your basis for then claiming that a infinite number of past-dependent physical events is impossible for a mindless force?//


Very simple answer. Even if God created an infinite number of events, it wouldn't violate an infinite regress because of reasons I've already covered. Please read both of these paragraphs several times over if you wouldn't mind (it will save time going over the same stuff):

In a mindless existence, all events (whether material or immaterial) happen as the result of a constantly changing past, which leads to an impossible infinite regression. In such an existence, no event can occur which is entirely independent from the past, because all things ultimately happen according to a chain of chance and probabilities (and are therefore past dependent). In an intelligent existence, events occur which do not depend on the past, as an act of choice. The "first mover" events that God causes are a matter of choice (dependent on God and not other events), and are therefore not past dependent. An (impossible) infinite regression only "occurs" when one event depends on a prior event, which depends on another prior event, and so on, to infinity. Therefore, a mindless existence must be rejected. And an intelligent existence must be accepted.

Here is what an impossible infinite regression looks like: Change 1 leads to change 2 leads to change 3 leads to change 4 leads to "group of changes" 5 leads to many more changes 6 leads to further spreading change 7, etc., to infinity. Change 7, for example, could never be reached if an infinite number of changes came before! Now here is what intelligent causation looks like: Change 1 depends on God, change 2 depends on God and not change 1, change 3 depends on God and not change 2, change 4 depends on God and not change 3, change 5 depends on God and not change 4, change 6 depends on God and not change 5, change 7 depends on God and not change 6 (nor any of the prior changes), etc.

Your example of intelligent causation is the same as the example I gave for non-intelligent causation. It's the exact same description that you said was impossible due to a first cause problem.

My example:
For a eternal non-intelligent source B this would be more like A1 depends on B, A2 depends on B, A3 depends on B, etc. there's no infinite regress if the chain of dependency stops at B
Your example:
Change 1 depends on God, change 2 depends on God and not change 1....

//What is your basis for assuming that chosen events are not determined by the past? If you had complete knowledge of the state of my brain and the sensory information presented to it, all my future choices should be predictable and dependent on my present/past state.//

The most simple way to illustrate this (in addition to directly above), is once again to imagine yourself in God's shoes: You've existed for eternity, but what matters is that you exist... Could you, at any given moment, cause an event - despite anything that you've done prior? Of course! Here is the key: The event that you cause at such a moment is not dependent on an infinite regress of past events. Rather, it was dependent on your decision at that precise moment to cause the event, and your ability at that precise moment to cause the event. Yes, there were other past events, but they too were the result of choice (and therefore not "past dependent" in one giant/endless causal chain).

Your words: "But this would mean that INFINITE past events must have occurred, which is impossible, since endless past events could never be traversed to get to a present/future event"
Using your argument above against first causes, I'd say no I couldn't. I could never finish making endless past decisions in order to make a decision at any given moment. Unless of course it's actually possible to traverse endless past events in which case there's no problem with a endless series of universes caused by a single non-intelligent force.

I've got a question for you... Do you want to believe in God? Are you really seeking Him? I'm afraid it doesn't really seem so, based on this discussion. I think it's pretty clear you're looking to ESCAPE belief in God, rather than find belief in God. That's pretty sad, if so! You're in trouble. Now is the time to turn things around before it's too late. Change before you have to, my friend!


I don't think wanting to believe something makes sense. Wanting something to be true and wanting to believe something to be true is not the same thing.
Example:
I want my local sports team to win the championship. I do not believe they will due to their roster, record, injuries, etc. Wanting to believe something in opposition to the evidence would be the same as wanting to delude myself. I would have no particular problem with acknowledging gods existence if god actually existed. I might disagree with the classification of him as benevolent or loveable, but that wouldn't change whether I thought he existed.

I am not seeking god. I read this forum because I find creationist arguments to be entertaining. If a omnipotent, omniscient god wants me to be aware of his existence, there's nothing stopping him from saying hi. Once existence is established a decision about whether to worship/love/etc. can be made.

Regarding the last couple sentences, if I could offer some advice, non-believers are generally well aware of the christian concept of needing salvation. Trying to warn them about it tends to come across as either funny or vaguely insulting that you think they might not have already considered and rejected that line of thought. I'm in the camp that finds those sorts of warnings funny in much the same way that you might laugh if someone warned you about Santa leaving coal in your stocking at Christmas. If you are actually attempting to change non-believers mind, those types of statements are pretty much guaranteed to be useless at best and possibly even counterproductive.

#57 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 04 November 2012 - 09:59 AM

//It looks like I didn't explain my thought very well. What I mean is that the eternal thing could have a part of it that causes change to occur to the eternal thing. The event that causes the change can be temporary. For instance, changes in the quantum vacuum have been shown to cause matter to "come into existence". This is an event that has been observed and documented. The matter/energy existed prior to the event and still existed after the event just in a different form. In such a way, the universe could have existed in a particular, maybe unrecognizible, form then a temporary interaction occurred in its constituent parts that caused the universe to change forms to the universe we see today.

Since this whole discussion is a logical exercise trying to prove the existence of a God, you have to include the possibility that the universe is the eternal thing that merely changed forms to become the space-time we live in.//


This simply has no bearing on my argument. In your scenario, whether in one form or another, change was occurring which was dependent on past change (which was dependent on past change, so on and so forth). This leads to an impossible infinite regress of changes/events.

//Why can't the pages have been endlessly turning? You may never reach the end of the pages but you would reach some page which could be the page we happen to be on right now. Endlessly turning pages do not have to be turning fast. Maybe the pages only turn once every 50 billion of our years. You seem to be assuming that the page we are on is the last page. What if the thing that causes the page to turn is a cyclic event that only happens once every 100 billion years. Sounds like a long time, and it is to us, but not to eternity. The book is then eternal and the thing that causes the page to turn is eternal but it only affects the book occasionally. You cannot rule out this possibility by saying it is impossible. You must logically show it to be impossible in order to conclude that a God is the only possibility left.//

Actually, no. In an infinite regress you would never "reach the page we are on". If I asked you to mow my lawn (representing the present moment), but that you had to mow an *ininite* number of other laws in order to reach my yard, would you ever get to my yard? Nope. And of course, you could take breaks between lawns (between events), but that doesn't change anything.

#58 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:56 AM

//I think this is going in circles so I'll let this be my final post on the topic unless you specifically request an answer to something.//

It's going in circles because you have no argument, and are therefore parroting the same previously debunked points.

//Your exact words were:
This means that either the material something, or immaterial something, must have "traversed" infinity at some point. D. We know that infinite physical events cannot be traversed. E. Therefore, it must be that so-called immaterial "events" can be traversed to achieve physical events

It doesn't matter if god doesn't have to. Your claim is that it (traversing infinity, reaching the end of a endless period, counting down from infinity, etc.) can be done under some set of conditions. If it can be done at all, it's not logically impossible. If it's not logically impossible for god, as long as logic is the same for both god and not-god, then it's not logically impossible for not-god.//


And I clarified the point for you already. In a manner of speaking, God can "traverse" infinite immaterial events, but only in the sense that He "escapes" having to actually cross over infinity, in order to cause a specific event (such as the creation of our universe). He's not actually traversing an impossible infinite regress, and that's the point.

Many people make the mistake of thinking that "infinite events", and an "impossible infinite regress", are the same thing. But this is not the case. In an existence where somethinghas always existed, it is true that infinite things have happened (whether material or immaterial). But again, an impossible infinite regress is only faced when change depends on change prior, which depends on change prior, which depends onchange prior, and so on to infinity: Think of each change as one domino falling over in an infinite line up of dominos in motion. If the present moment represents the last domino, we'd never reach the here and now if infinite dominos had to fall before reaching the last one. And yet, this is precisely how a mindless existence would have to work. But it's NOT how intelligence works, where choice and decision are involved. God could tip the last domino alone, and indeed it would fall over as a matter of choice - with zero dependence on past dominos (past changes and events).

//If it can be done at all, it's not logically impossible.//

...And? The point is not whether it can be done, but how. To have missed this, is to have missed the entire point of this discussion, and my argument.

//Your example of intelligent causation is the same as the example I gave for non-intelligent causation. It's the exact same description that you said was impossible due to a first cause problem.

My example:
For a eternal non-intelligent source B this would be more like A1 depends on B, A2 depends on B, A3 depends on B, etc. there's no infinite regress if the chain of dependency stops at B
Your example:
Change 1 depends on God, change 2 depends on God and not change 1....

Your words: "But this would mean that INFINITE past events must have occurred, which is impossible, since endless past events could never be traversed to get to a present/future event"

Using your argument above against first causes, I'd say no I couldn't. I could never finish making endless past decisions in order to make a decision at any given moment. Unless of course it's actually possible to traverse endless past events in which case there's no problem with a endless series of universes caused by a single non-intelligent force.//


Yet again... You continue to conflate intelligent causation, with mindless causation, which is entirely illogical. Intelligent causation involves will and choice, whereas mindless causation clearly does not. And therefore, mindless causation (whether material or immaterial events are in play), relies on past change, after past change, after past change, to infinity (in an eternal existence). Intelligent causation does not rely on any such causal chain. If you wish to escape this simple fact, you'd have to explain how a "mindless something" could produce change, which does not depend on prior change (after change, after change...). Good luck!

//I could never finish making endless past decisions in order to make a decision at any given moment.//

This is simply nonsense. I could make the decision to bake a cake right now, despite past decisions. Or even in defiance of past decisions. Decisions are an act of present will, and a product of mind. I would fear for your sanity if you actually believe that the decisions you make are somehow magically produced by other decisions (apart from your own being). It is impossible to say that decisions do not depend on the person making them, being that decisions don't produce decisions. People produce decisions. So clearly, there is no impossible infinite regress being violated as decisions are made by God.

...This falls into the "A1 depends on B, A2 depends on B, A3 depends on B" scenario, where A1, etc., is the decision, and B is the person making it. And therefore, even as you agree, this does not violate impossible infinite regress.

Despite being entirely unaware of the fact that you've just done so, thank you for demonstrating so very clearly the difference between events which are caused by decision, as opposed to events which are caused by chance/probability (mindlessness). We can clearly see that the mindless scenario must be rejected, as it leads to an impossible infinite regress.


//I don't think wanting to believe something makes sense. Wanting something to be true and wanting to believe something to be true is not the same thing.

Example:
I want my local sports team to win the championship. I do not believe they will due to their roster, record, injuries, etc. Wanting to believe something in opposition to the evidence would be the same as wanting to delude myself. I would have no particular problem with acknowledging gods existence if god actually existed. I might disagree with the classification of him as benevolent or loveable, but that wouldn't change whether I thought he existed.//


That is to say, I think that you believe in God, but want to deny that belief (suppress the truth). And btw, you're question begging by attempting to make a point based on the assumption that God does not exist. (God does exist, and the evidence is everywhere including right here in front of you.)

//I am not seeking god. I read this forum because I find creationist arguments to be entertaining. If a omnipotent, omniscient god wants me to be aware of his existence, there's nothing stopping him from saying hi. Once existence is established a decision about whether to worship/love/etc. can be made.//

I believe (and feel that it's obvious) that God is self-evident to all men, because of creation. He doesn't need to say "hi", such that you can believe, any more than the people who built your home would need to walk up to you and say "hi" such that you can establish their existence.

And I'm glad that the truth entertains you! That being the case, you will find endless entertainment here. You're in the right place!

//Regarding the last couple sentences, if I could offer some advice, non-believers are generally well aware of the christian concept of needing salvation. Trying to warn them about it tends to come across as either funny or vaguely insulting that you think they might not have already considered and rejected that line of thought. I'm in the camp that finds those sorts of warnings funny in much the same way that you might laugh if someone warned you about Santa leaving coal in your stocking at Christmas. If you are actually attempting to change non-believers mind, those types of statements are pretty much guaranteed to be useless at best and possibly even counterproductive.//

I wouldn't say it if I didn't care! It might be cliche, but if you saw somebody that you believed to be headed toward walking off a cliff, I would hope that you would say something - and not just let them keep walking (whether they are personally aware that they need to turn away from the cliff or not). It's pretty obvious that by saying something, you would be reaching out in consideration of that person's well being. And therefore, it would be totally irrational of the person headed toward the cliff to object.

You sound very passive aggressive, I'm afraid (implying that you're here for entertainment, and to laugh and scoff at creation). If you didn't actually believe in God, there would be nothing to be angry about.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#59 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 November 2012 - 03:15 PM

1. It doesn't matter if god doesn't have to. Your claim is that it (traversing infinity, reaching the end of a endless period, counting down from infinity, etc.) can be done under some set of conditions. If it can be done at all, it's not logically impossible. If it's not logically impossible for god, as long as logic is the same for both god and not-god, then it's not logically impossible for not-god.


2. Your example of intelligent causation is the same as the example I gave for non-intelligent causation. It's the exact same description that you said was impossible due to a first cause problem.

My example:
For a eternal non-intelligent source B this would be more like A1 depends on B, A2 depends on B, A3 depends on B, etc. there's no infinite regress if the chain of dependency stops at B
Your example:
Change 1 depends on God, change 2 depends on God and not change 1....


3. I don't think wanting to believe something makes sense. Wanting something to be true and wanting to believe something to be true is not the same thing.

4. I am not seeking god. I read this forum because I find creationist arguments to be entertaining. If a omnipotent, omniscient god wants me to be aware of his existence, there's nothing stopping him from saying hi. Once existence is established a decision about whether to worship/love/etc. can be made.

5. Regarding the last couple sentences, if I could offer some advice, non-believers are generally well aware of the christian concept of needing salvation. Trying to warn them about it tends to come across as either funny or vaguely insulting that you think they might not have already considered and rejected that line of thought. I'm in the camp that finds those sorts of warnings funny in much the same way that you might laugh if someone warned you about Santa leaving coal in your stocking at Christmas. If you are actually attempting to change non-believers mind, those types of statements are pretty much guaranteed to be useless at best and possibly even counterproductive.


1. You're STILL trying to associate God with the "laws of logic" that we associate with the natural world, in doing so you are trying to compare God as a finite natural thing, rather than as God. This has been pointed out to you, but you continue to avoid that point. Immaterial / supernatural things are not confined to the laws that we have found within the natural world, there may be laws to govern them however we are unable at this time to work out what they are. Therefore this entire fiasco is concieved on your inability to accept that you cannot judge God under the same principles that you judge natural causes, it simply cannot be done.

Readers note the critical assumption in Miles post, as underlined and bolded.


2. In your analogy, if you follow natural laws to the letter then B MUST have a cause, if B doesn't have a cause then it is an uncaused cause which defies the law of cause and effect... Thus it is something supernatural since supernatural means to be above natural laws... Therefore you're invoking a cause with God-like qualities but refuse to call it God..... This is where the infinite regress comes in whereby B is caused by C but then natural law dictates that C must have a cause so that would be D but then natural law dictates that D have a cause which would be E.... ad infinitum.

3. This also applies to the atheist... see point two above (the bolded part)... I find it amusing that many atheists state this but rarely stop to consider that they may be in the same situation. It just demonstrates the lack of critical thinking people have on their own ideas to double check them.

4. I'll go out on a limb and try to assume what God may be thinking... (Gasp!)

If God were to "say hi" and after you believed then your belief would not be genuine since you required God to "say hi". An analogy, I can create a video game where all I had to do was press the B button and I win, now would that "win" be worthwhile? No because that is what I programmed it to do. The same can be for our faith. God could program all of us to believe or come and "say hi" etc, however that would be akin to the useless video game I created, it means that life with ll its challenges would be meaningless. Additionally there would be some who would be skeptical even after God came and said "hi". As per the story of the resurrection of Lazarus, a group of people SAW him get resurrected yet some still didn't believe.

5. Time will tell if such things are to be taken lightly
  • goldliger likes this

#60 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:00 PM

4. I'll go out on a limb and try to assume what God may be thinking... (Gasp!)

If God were to "say hi" and after you believed then your belief would not be genuine since you required God to "say hi". An analogy, I can create a video game where all I had to do was press the B button and I win, now would that "win" be worthwhile? No because that is what I programmed it to do. The same can be for our faith. God could program all of us to believe or come and "say hi" etc, however that would be akin to the useless video game I created, it means that life with ll its challenges would be meaningless. Additionally there would be some who would be skeptical even after God came and said "hi". As per the story of the resurrection of Lazarus, a group of people SAW him get resurrected yet some still didn't believe.


The same thing can be applied to apologies... They mean more when people apologise on their own steam but if you need to ask someone to say sorry then its not as meaningful.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users