Jump to content


Photo

Proof Of An Intelligent Uncaused Cause - God


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

#101 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:47 AM

Why must choice be involved in order for something to occur outside of its characteristics if the unintelligent cause is outside of what we call existence? Are you saying that a timeless, eternal mindless thing outside of what we would call existence cannot cause a temporal effect? Why not? Since cause and effect are no longer limiting this supernatural mindless thing, random events are able to occur without a cause. One of those random events could be the impetus for our temporal existence.

I am not saying that this is the truth, nor do I rule out the possibility of the existence of God. I am just saying that the logical "proof" put forward in this thread is not really able to prove that God must exist. In the same vein, I could not use the logic in this "proof" to show that God must not exist.

Whether there is a purpose for life or not is really outside of our discussion. That is, unless you can show that purpose is required and then include it as part of the proof. Wanting life to have a purpose is not the same as there actually being a purpose.

Being hungry does not prove that we have bread.


God's Word and God's power prove that we have God.

You need to ask yourself: "Why is it that no house is ever built as a dwelling place for man without intelligent construction and yet somehow nature supposedly made life...which is far more complex than any structure man ever built; even though man has never observed nature doing it a single time in human history."

#102 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:55 AM

Why must choice be involved in order for something to occur outside of its characteristics if the unintelligent cause is outside of what we call existence? Are you saying that a timeless, eternal mindless thing outside of what we would call existence cannot cause a temporal effect? Why not? Since cause and effect are no longer limiting this supernatural mindless thing, random events are able to occur without a cause. One of those random events could be the impetus for our temporal existence.

I am not saying that this is the truth, nor do I rule out the possibility of the existence of God. I am just saying that the logical "proof" put forward in this thread is not really able to prove that God must exist. In the same vein, I could not use the logic in this "proof" to show that God must not exist.

Whether there is a purpose for life or not is really outside of our discussion. That is, unless you can show that purpose is required and then include it as part of the proof. Wanting life to have a purpose is not the same as there actually being a purpose.

Being hungry does not prove that we have bread.


When have you ever seen something natural (or unintelligent) go beyond its own scope? If you posit that it can then you are merely doing what that guy did in the video by merely claiming something that has all the characteristics of God, but refuse to call it God.

If the cause is timeless, spaceless etc what does that leave you with? Abstract objects or a disembodied mind... Abstract objects have no causal power, hence the cause must be (if adhering to these traits) a mind, which therefore invokes intelligence. If you claim no intelligence then you have abstract numbers, which have no causal power, (this is what I said way back, when I said that intelligence was demonstrated for being a causal force).

Intelligence leads to creativity which therefore leads to the intricacies of the universe. However its as Craig said, (who has written many books on the issue of God), if you wish to know his reasoning feel free to jump onto his website (Reasonable Faith) and ask him, he answers questions and may have even written an article on it, (in fact, I'll go have a look).


EDIT: Here is a link

http://www.reasonabl...rg/personal-god
  • goldliger likes this

#103 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:49 AM

God's Word and God's power prove that we have God.

You need to ask yourself: "Why is it that no house is ever built as a dwelling place for man without intelligent construction and yet somehow nature supposedly made life...which is far more complex than any structure man ever built; even though man has never observed nature doing it a single time in human history."

Books that claim to be authored by God or supposed evidence of God's power are not part of this argument for God.

The supposed design of nature is also off topic for this particular logical proof of God.

#104 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:55 AM

Books that claim to be authored by God or supposed evidence of God's power are not part of this argument for God.

The supposed design of nature is also off topic for this particular logical proof of God.


It is more than a claim. Those of us who have seen the power of God's Word (the Bible) and the supernatural power that performs miracles, healings, and changes lives is more than sufficient evidence for those of us who have seen it first-hand.

Don't try to tell me what is and is not 'off topic' when you are talking about evidence. The evidence to what we are saying is there for any person who is honest and will call upon God for that evidence.

Just one example:

#105 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:21 AM

When have you ever seen something natural (or unintelligent) go beyond its own scope? If you posit that it can then you are merely doing what that guy did in the video by merely claiming something that has all the characteristics of God, but refuse to call it God.

No. I specifically said it was unintelligent and the events were random. The only thing they have in common is that both God and the mindless first cause are said to exist outside of space and time.

If the cause is timeless, spaceless etc what does that leave you with? Abstract objects or a disembodied mind... Abstract objects have no causal power, hence the cause must be (if adhering to these traits) a mind, which therefore invokes intelligence. If you claim no intelligence then you have abstract numbers, which have no causal power, (this is what I said way back, when I said that intelligence was demonstrated for being a causal force).

Jesus is in that existence according to your scriptures (He is with God...and is God). Is Jesus an abstract object or a disembodied mind? Won't you will be there someday? Is the crown you throw at Jesus' feet be an abstract object or a disembodied mind?

I don't think he or you have shown that the only thing that can exist in the "timeless, spaceless" existence is abstract objects and disembodied minds. Since that existence is so far removed from our own, how can he know what can exist there? If those are the only things that can exist there, how does he know that abstract objects cannot cause things in that existence?

Intelligence leads to creativity which therefore leads to the intricacies of the universe. However its as Craig said, (who has written many books on the issue of God), if you wish to know his reasoning feel free to jump onto his website (Reasonable Faith) and ask him, he answers questions and may have even written an article on it, (in fact, I'll go have a look).


EDIT: Here is a link

http://www.reasonabl...rg/personal-god


I read his response to the question. About the mindless first cause, he said:

We've concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause . . . . Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why isn't the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?


If this first cause is in the material universe (space and time), then his conclusion is correct. However, in order for the material universe to be initiated, the first cause must necessarily not be in the material universe. If it is not in the material universe, then the first cause must not be subject to the laws of cause and effect. If the first cause is not subject to the laws of cause and effect, this entire statement by Mr. Craig does not apply to the first cause. If the entire statement does not apply to the first cause then the first cause can be a mindless thing or an intelligent thing. You prefer the intelligent thing but, logically, the mindless thing can be concluded.

#106 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:33 AM

It is more than a claim. Those of us who have seen the power of God's Word (the Bible) and the supernatural power that performs miracles, healings, and changes lives is more than sufficient evidence for those of us who have seen it first-hand.

Don't try to tell me what is and is not 'off topic' when you are talking about evidence. The evidence to what we are saying is there for any person who is honest and will call upon God for that evidence.

Just one example:

Sorry, I can't watch the video at my location.

What was the name of the medical doctor that pronounced the man dead? What methodologies were used to determine that he was, in fact, deceased...electroencephalogram? How long was he dead...30 seconds...a week?
Does the video show him being raised from the dead? What other documentation can you produce that would convince a court appointed jury that the man was dead and then raise back to life?

I will look at the video but I will not likely be convinced because it is probably just another story about a guy who got raised from the dead. You would think that with all the miracles happening in the Christian church that someone would actually produce some convincing evidence.

Ok, how about you perform a small miracle. I have a six word sentence that I have written down and tacked to my bulletin board. If you can tap into God's power and tell me what that sentence says, I will be fully convinced of the existence and power of God. Care to give it a go?

#107 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:38 AM

Sorry, I can't watch the video at my location.

What was the name of the medical doctor that pronounced the man dead? What methodologies were used to determine that he was, in fact, deceased...electroencephalogram? How long was he dead...30 seconds...a week?
Does the video show him being raised from the dead? What other documentation can you produce that would convince a court appointed jury that the man was dead and then raise back to life?

I will look at the video but I will not likely be convinced because it is probably just another story about a guy who got raised from the dead. You would think that with all the miracles happening in the Christian church that someone would actually produce some convincing evidence.

Ok, how about you perform a small miracle. I have a six word sentence that I have written down and tacked to my bulletin board. If you can tap into God's power and tell me what that sentence says, I will be fully convinced of the existence and power of God. Care to give it a go?


Perhaps this link will help you get answers to your questions.

Dr. Crandall was brought before a board of 120 physicians on the matter and they could not falsify what he and his witnesses said about what happened in the revival of Jeff Markham from death.

Your statement is so far from reality to those of us who have seen the supernatural on many occasions. At this moment I am working in the same building with two people who were instantaneously healed of endometriosis (both of them at different times) and double pnuemonia (one of them) and they are still well to this day and never had a reoccurrence since then. On another occasion, after a nine year old boy with terminal luekemia near death was prayed for his disease vanished and the doctors were amazed.

You said, "Ok, how about you perform a small miracle. I have a six word sentence that I have written down and tacked to my bulletin board..If you can tap into God's power and tell me what that sentence says...."

I don't believe you. On more than one occasion I have been in the same room full of atheists/agnositcs and others who saw the the miraculous performed right in front of them yet almost none of them departed believing the supernatural event they had seen. Some chalked it up to 'David Copperfield illusion', others to hypnosis, and still others merely chose to live in denial that such things happened at all.

"And he(Jesus) said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31.

P.S. there are two more documented cases of resurrection from the dead in the name of Jesus Christ available on the Internet. One was in Africa and the other in America; both happened in the last twelve years.
  • Salsa likes this

#108 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:21 PM

Dr. Crandall was brought before a board of 120 physicians on the matter and they could not falsify what he and his witnesses said about what happened in the revival of Jeff Markham from death.

Your statement is so far from reality to those of us who have seen the supernatural on many occasions. At this moment I am working in the same building with two people who were instantaneously healed of endometriosis (both of them at different times) and double pnuemonia (one of them) and they are still well to this day and never had a reoccurrence since then. On another occasion, after a nine year old boy with terminal luekemia near death was prayed for his disease vanished and the doctors were amazed.

You said, "Ok, how about you perform a small miracle. I have a six word sentence that I have written down and tacked to my bulletin board..If you can tap into God's power and tell me what that sentence says...."

I don't believe you. On more than one occasion I have been in the same room full of atheists/agnositcs and others who saw the the miraculous performed right in front of them yet almost none of them departed believing the supernatural event they had seen. Some chalked it up to 'David Copperfield illusion', others to hypnosis, and still others merely chose to live in denial that such things happened at all.

"And he(Jesus) said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31.

P.S. there are two more documented cases of resurrection from the dead in the name of Jesus Christ available on the Internet. One was in Africa and the other in America; both happened in the last twelve years.

Do you have a way of providing the names of the witnesses or the members of the board? I couldn't find any of that on the internet.

Strange that God couldn't just heal the man. Instead God required another shock with the defribrillator, which by the way is not used to start a heart that has stopped beating completely.
If the emergency room doctor was continually trying to use the defibrillator when the heart was stopped, then he should have been reprimanded. Why did the cardiologist, Dr Crandall, not tell the ER doctor that he was screwing up? In fact, if the patient's heart was stopped, why would a cardiologist ask the ER doctor to "shock him one more time"?

So, instead of healing the man completely, God decided that he needed one more shock, quadrupal bypass surgery, and three days of unconsciousness before He would show the man had been healed.

A cardiologist doesn't know the right procedure to restart a stopped heart. Hmmmmm. Nope...sorry....I just think it is an embellished tale, being used to sell books and get money for his favorite charities.

Now to the miracle I requested that you let God use you for. Your response was as I expected. Instead of praying and seeing if God would even try to get another into His fold, you chose to claim that I wouldn't believe it anyway. You've seen miracles with your own eyes but apparently didn't expect anything this time. You didn't even try. Did you shake the dust off your sandals, too?

#109 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:39 PM

Ok, how about you perform a small miracle. I have a six word sentence that I have written down and tacked to my bulletin board. If you can tap into God's power and tell me what that sentence says, I will be fully convinced of the existence and power of God. Care to give it a go?


Jonas, I doubt you would willingly be numbered among the company of those that were guaranteed to get absolutely nothing at all from God but total silence, and a lack of anything miraculous:

"When he learned that Jesus was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle. He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer. The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there, vehemently accusing him. Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. That day Herod and Pilate became friends--before this they had been enemies." Luke 23:7-12

Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" John 2:18

"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" Luke 16:27-31

"Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself ! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!" Matthew 27:39-40

All these people were guilty of putting God to the test (Luke 4:12) and they got nothing for their efforts.

#110 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:58 PM

Jonas, I doubt you would willingly be numbered among the company of those that were guaranteed to get absolutely nothing at all from God but total silence, and a lack of anything miraculous:

"When he learned that Jesus was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle. He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer. The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there, vehemently accusing him. Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. That day Herod and Pilate became friends--before this they had been enemies." Luke 23:7-12

Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" John 2:18

"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" Luke 16:27-31

"Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself ! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!" Matthew 27:39-40

All these people were guilty of putting God to the test (Luke 4:12) and they got nothing for their efforts.

I guess you don't think you can get God to tell you the right six words either.

Strange, don't you think? God wants all to come to Him and wants none to perish. He knows us intimately and knows what would make us believe, yet He won't go that far. Six words...six silly little words and God won't do it. I can only assume that, if He exists, He wants some people to not believe.

If you were a police officer with your pistol in your hand, and you did nothing as you watched an armed man kill a schoolyard of children, would you be praised and worshiped? Yet this God you claim to worship, does nothing as, according to your belief, billions of people get consigned to Hell just for not believing. This God made most of the people of this Earth so the fires of Hell could burn brighter. He could simply get people to believe by providing each person with just enough evidence for them. That should be a snap for an omnipotent being...but He can't be bothered with saving people from Hell....He's got to make sure the Good Christians get parking spaces close to the store, or that they find their keys.

#111 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:32 PM

1. No. I specifically said it was unintelligent and the events were random. The only thing they have in common is that both God and the mindless first cause are said to exist outside of space and time.


2. Jesus is in that existence according to your scriptures (He is with God...and is God). Is Jesus an abstract object or a disembodied mind? Won't you will be there someday?

3. Is the crown you throw at Jesus' feet be an abstract object or a disembodied mind?

4. I don't think he or you have shown that the only thing that can exist in the "timeless, spaceless" existence is abstract objects and disembodied minds.

5. Since that existence is so far removed from our own, how can he know what can exist there? If those are the only things that can exist there, how does he know that abstract objects cannot cause things in that existence?


6. If this first cause is in the material universe (space and time), then his conclusion is correct.


7. However, in order for the material universe to be initiated, the first cause must necessarily not be in the material universe.

8. If it is not in the material universe, then the first cause must not be subject to the laws of cause and effect.

9. If the first cause is not subject to the laws of cause and effect, this entire statement by Mr. Craig does not apply to the first cause.

10. If the entire statement does not apply to the first cause then the first cause can be a mindless thing or an intelligent thing. You prefer the intelligent thing but, logically, the mindless thing can be concluded.


1. This was relating to how a timeless thing can create a temporal effect... You didn't address my question.

2. When have I ever mentioned Jesus? Jesus is mentioned to be part of the Trinity of God therefore if God is a disembodied mind then Jesus would be a part of that. Not sure by what source of logic you make the claim that Jesus is abstract.... (sounds like a desperate plea to me)

3. What crown? Additionally that could be an abstract object since are not claiming that the crown is a cause for something.

4. What else could there be? Enlighten me.

5. Exist where?

6. Considering that Craig is talking about something outside of space and time, this claim is incorrect. Redefining someones argument so it doesn't make sense or is making the opposite claim it was making is not a valid "debate tactic".

7 and 8. That is what Craig says

9.. No Craig says that whilst the cause is outside of time and space, the effect produced fits within what we deem time and space... THere is no contradiction, you've merely altered terms (point 6)

10. I have no idea on what you are claiming.... Craig states that a mindless timeless cause cannot create a temporal effect, whereas a personal timeless cause can choose to create a temporal effect since by being personal has the choice of creating something without anticeded conditions.


Perhaps quoting him in context would help since he goes on...

"We've concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause . . . . Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why isn't the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?

. . . There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe's beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By "choose" one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.

Read more: http://www.reasonabl...d#ixzz2Ck3Is3gp"

#112 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 20 November 2012 - 06:27 AM

1. This was relating to how a timeless thing can create a temporal effect... You didn't address my question.

2. When have I ever mentioned Jesus? Jesus is mentioned to be part of the Trinity of God therefore if God is a disembodied mind then Jesus would be a part of that. Not sure by what source of logic you make the claim that Jesus is abstract.... (sounds like a desperate plea to me)

3. What crown? Additionally that could be an abstract object since are not claiming that the crown is a cause for something.

The crown (or crowns) that you get in heaven for doing great things for the kingdom of God while you were on Earth. Then you are supposed to throw them at Jesus' feet. Do you even read your Bible?

4. What else could there be? Enlighten me.

Anything you can imagine, since neither you, I, or William Lane Craig have any idea what a timeless, spaceless existence is like or what could exist there. As far as I can see, he never explains why he included those two things (abstract things, and disembodied mind) and excluded everything else. What are the parameters of this timeless, spaceless existence that allows those two things but prevents anything else from existing there. Well, anything except our entire universe which must exist as a bubble within this timeless, spaceless existence.

5. Exist where?

In the timeless, spaceless existence. See my reply to 4.

6. Considering that Craig is talking about something outside of space and time, this claim is incorrect. Redefining someones argument so it doesn't make sense or is making the opposite claim it was making is not a valid "debate tactic".

7 and 8. That is what Craig says

9.. No Craig says that whilst the cause is outside of time and space, the effect produced fits within what we deem time and space... THere is no contradiction, you've merely altered terms (point 6)

I will try again...

Mr Craig's statement:

We've concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause . . . . Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why isn't the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?

He claims that the first cause is in a timeless, spaceless eternal existence. He then claims that, somehow, the first cause is limited by the laws of cause and effect (see the bolded part). How can that be if the timeless, spaceless eternal existence is not subject to those laws? If the timeless, spaceless eternal existence were subject to those laws, then God would also not be able to be first cause unless you give God some special ability that neither a mindless first cause nor any intelligent beings have.

10. I have no idea on what you are claiming.... Craig states that a mindless timeless cause cannot create a temporal effect, whereas a personal timeless cause can choose to create a temporal effect since by being personal has the choice of creating something without anticeded conditions.

Mr Craig has no idea rules or limitations exist in his proposed timeless, spaceless, eternal existence. The rules he claims for that existence were just made up by him. They might seem logical to him but they are still made up without any evidence that they are the correct rules and limitations. This is especially true since the rules he uses are different if the eternal thing is mindless from what those rules he uses if the eternal thing is intelligent.

Perhaps quoting him in context would help since he goes on...

"We've concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause . . . . Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why isn't the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?

. . . There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe's beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By "choose" one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.


Nope. In context didn't change the fact that Mr. Craig is trying to use the rules of our spacetime in the timeless spaceless eternal existence so that he can eliminate the mindless thing as a first cause. He doesn't really do that very well, because he still has to allow the disembodied mind to violate those rules in order for it to be the first cause.

#113 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:33 AM

Sorry for the extra post. My network connect dropped while I was saving and now the forum doesn't show that I replied to gilbo12345. Hopefully, this will fix that.

#114 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:25 AM

Jonas5877

Do you have a way of providing the names of the witnesses or the members of the board? I couldn't find any of that on the internet.


You would have to get that from Dr. Crandall on his website or from the hospital where he was employed.

Strange that God couldn't just heal the man. Instead God required another shock with the defribrillator, which by the way is not used to start a heart that has stopped beating completely.


He's done that too. (wink). The African man I spoke of was dead for over two days and even in the morgue but just before his body was brought into the church building before his own funeral he came out of the coffin. He had been clinically dead for the better part of three days.




If the emergency room doctor was continually trying to use the defibrillator when the heart was stopped, then he should have been reprimanded. Why did the cardiologist, Dr Crandall, not tell the ER doctor that he was screwing up? In fact, if the patient's heart was stopped, why would a cardiologist ask the ER doctor to "shock him one more time"?


Ask them. I dont' think anything was done wrong as far as I can tell. But you clearly don't care about the victim come back to life, Jeff Markham. You only wish to defend your unbelief.

So, instead of healing the man completely, God decided that he needed one more shock, quadrupal bypass surgery, and three days of unconsciousness before He would show the man had been healed.


Did you listen carefully to Jeff Markham's wonderful testimony and how happy he is to be alive? Had you been him would you sue the doctors and the hospital? Sounds like it.

A cardiologist doesn't know the right procedure to restart a stopped heart. Hmmmmm. Nope...sorry....I just think it is an embellished tale, being used to sell books and get money for his favorite charities.


You keep harping on this matter as if they had done an evil to Jeff M. What's the matter with you?

Now to the miracle I requested that you let God use you for. Your response was as I expected. Instead of praying and seeing if God would even try to get another into His fold, you chose to claim that I wouldn't believe it anyway. You've seen miracles with your own eyes but apparently didn't expect anything this time. You didn't even try. Did you shake the dust off your sandals, too?


And how could I know that you would be honest about it? How would I know that after telling you the truth about your written statement there that you wouldn't lie to me about what you have written on your office board/wall? I don't trust you. I told you I have already seen many atheists challenge God in the presence of witnesses and almost all of them walked away denying what they saw. Why should I think you are any different?

BUT....there are two things you can do to verify that I am telling the truth.

1. Go and join the UKchatterbox based in London England and ask the posters on the London thread about a former poster their that called herself 'spiritmover'. She was the 'resident psychic' who gave private readings to those that wanted it. She tried to give me a reading but my helpers and I ended up converting her to Jesus Christ. She was the real deal. She gave me the names of all my children, told me who was in my office with me at the time, what they were wearing, and even the jewelry they had on. This done from 5,000 miles away from a woman we had never met. About two years after we converted her to Jesus I went back on board UKchatterbox and inquired of some of the posters to see if any of them remembered her. I got a positive result from a man who said he benefited greatly from her gift. So check it out for yourself.

2. About five years ago I was posting on imdb (Internet Movie Data Base) and there was a hard-core atheist there who called herself Chickenhawk (or Chix of various derivations). She still posts on imdb the last time I checked. She and her atheist companions had invaded the Passion of the Christ thread and were bringing many hateful statements to the other posters and especially the Christians. They blasphemed the Lord frequently and eventually they challenged me. They said, "If God is real then ask Him to shut us all off this "Passion of the Christ" thread. I told them, "You're on." That night (a Friday night as I remember it) I prayed that the Lord would remove all of His blaspheming enemies off that thread. The next morning I returned to the board only to see that all of the atheists and many others nearly as evil as them had been moved to the 'Religion, Faith, and Spirituality' section. I was amazed. But likewise check it out for yourself for it is a matter of public record. If you go on board imdb then ask Chix or 'the-dork-lord', another atheist who was there at that time. Just ask about the prayer that 'Martyrs5/Calypsis4' made. I can't remember which name I was using there at the time. They should know who and what you are asking about. None of them would accept the fact that my prayer was answered but they can't deny that imdb made that strange move for some 'odd reason.' One might find that move in the imdb archives.

'You didn't even try. Did you shake the dust off your sandals, too?'


Yes, I did. I prayed with one of my helpers and the Lord said, 'No!' That only means He knows things about your degree of honesty that we don't know. Concerning the sandal thing....if you don't follow through on my two suggestions above I will do that very thing right here in front of my computer.

#115 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:33 AM

The crown (or crowns) that you get in heaven for doing great things for the kingdom of God while you were on Earth. Then you are supposed to throw them at Jesus' feet. Do you even read your Bible?

Anything you can imagine, since neither you, I, or William Lane Craig have any idea what a timeless, spaceless existence is like or what could exist there. As far as I can see, he never explains why he included those two things (abstract things, and disembodied mind) and excluded everything else. What are the parameters of this timeless, spaceless existence that allows those two things but prevents anything else from existing there. Well, anything except our entire universe which must exist as a bubble within this timeless, spaceless existence.


In the timeless, spaceless existence. See my reply to 4.

I will try again...

Mr Craig's statement:

He claims that the first cause is in a timeless, spaceless eternal existence. He then claims that, somehow, the first cause is limited by the laws of cause and effect (see the bolded part). How can that be if the timeless, spaceless eternal existence is not subject to those laws? If the timeless, spaceless eternal existence were subject to those laws, then God would also not be able to be first cause unless you give God some special ability that neither a mindless first cause nor any intelligent beings have.


So you are saying that because there is the potential for something imaginary to exist then that is ok... The only things that we know exists as per immaterial spaceless etc are abstract numbers, and a mind (and thoughts thereof), therefore you're denial of this is purely based on your wanting to deny, and place faith in something that hasn't been shown to exist. I'll take God any day of the week on those odds.



I will also "try again"

As I said you are taking him out of context, the question which you are citing him was a rhetorical question as in the next paragraph he demonstrates how what you're claiming is overcome. I suggest you read what he has written a few times over since it seems your bad habit of not reading what people write is reoccuring...


"There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe's beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By "choose" one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator."

The point he is making is that for a timeless cause to produce a temporal event outside of its timelessness it needs to have the ability to choose to do such a thing
  • goldliger likes this

#116 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:28 PM

I guess you don't think you can get God to tell you the right six words either.
Strange, don't you think? God wants all to come to Him and wants none to perish. He knows us intimately and knows what would make us believe, yet He won't go that far. Six words...six silly little words and God won't do it. I can only assume that, if He exists, He wants some people to not believe.


Jonas, a miracle is by definition something that doesn't usually happen and I don't think anyone here ever claimed to be a miracle-worker at the snapp of your demanding fingers, least of all me, so you can keep your six words and enjoy them for as much time as you have left on this earth. As far as I am concernced they are not even worth the tiny space that they occupy on your bulletin board, and I am going to tell you exactly why.

The reason is quite simple if you invest a little sober thought about what the scriptures you quote are saying within the context of the rest of the Bible.

Sure, God wants all people to be saved. Who wouldn't?? You probably want all people to be free and to enjoy the freedom that you enjoy, but does that mean that you would simply open the gates of every prison cell around the entire world and let every rapist, murderer, thief, arsonist, swindler, child-molester and so on .. to go free as they are? Neither does God! And being saved involves more than just believing he exists:

"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder." James 2:19

God DOES want everyone to be saved, but not unconditionally, and not with the kind of "belief" that even demons possess.

Miracles weren't performed by Jesus as magical bulletin board tricks to get people to believe. Quite often they were doen to relieve suffering and to give hope, but sometimes, rather than being given to produce faith, they were presented as a testimony against those who refused to believe:

"Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

Miracles can just as easily produce rebellion as they can produce faith because unless someone submits to God's way then merely believing something in a worldly manner will not benefit them. A rapist, murderer, sodomist, child-molester, burgler, or even a petty shoplifter is never going to be free from the things that enslave him unless he ceases to exist and becomes a new creation. Death and resurrection are the conditions. Apart from these there will be neither freedom nor salvation.

Someone conjuring up the six words you think are sufficient to give you faith might make you become a church-goer, try to live your life differently, make the way you think change and so on. But they will never, never be enough to save you.

You are as mistaken about faith and miracles as you are about the use of "omnipotence" to convert free-willed individuals. A policeman's gun can only be used to enforce law. As "powerful" as it may seem, it has no power to change anyone unless that person really wants to be changed. Also, a policeman's gun can also only be used under the confines of the law, and as powerful as God is, He by his own admission, submits to law, just as much as a policeman does (or at least should do).

#117 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:42 PM

So you are saying that because there is the potential for something imaginary to exist then that is ok... The only things that we know exists as per immaterial spaceless etc are abstract numbers, and a mind (and thoughts thereof), therefore you're denial of this is purely based on your wanting to deny, and place faith in something that hasn't been shown to exist. I'll take God any day of the week on those odds.

And how, exactly, do we know that the only things that exist per immaterial spaceless...etc are abstract numbers and a mind? Because Mr Craig said so?
I certainly would rather place my "faith" in something that has been shown to exist. That makes more sense than making stuff up as you go in order to find an all powerful being that does not want to be found.

Now that I think about it, I cannot see how Mr. Craig could assume that a mind can be disembodied. Is your mind disembodied? Has anyone ever documented a mind that did not have a brain associated with it? Have you seen any scientific evidence that a mind can be disembodied?

If Mr. Craig can limit spaceless, immaterial things to a mind and abstract numbers, I choose to limit it to abstract numbers due to the lack of evidence that a mind can be immaterial, spaceless, timeless or eternal.

I will also "try again"

As I said you are taking him out of context, the question which you are citing him was a rhetorical question as in the next paragraph he demonstrates how what you're claiming is overcome. I suggest you read what he has written a few times over since it seems your bad habit of not reading what people write is reoccuring...


"There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe's beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By "choose" one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator."

The point he is making is that for a timeless cause to produce a temporal event outside of its timelessness it needs to have the ability to choose to do such a thing

He is saying that the cause is eternal. How does he determine that limitation on eternal things? Is that constraint based on something other than the fact that it conveniently makes his logical argument work?
Why must a mindless eternal thing be unchanging? It is in a timeless, spaceless eternal existence. So, it is not constrained by the laws of cause and effect and it surely could be changing. Couldn't that mindless eternal thing be changing and at some point then changed such that it caused spacetime to start? Thus the cause is not eternal but merely an instance of the changing mindless eternal thing.

#118 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:37 PM

"...the changing mindless eternal thing." What, pray tell, is that?

#119 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 06:23 PM

And how, exactly, do we know that the only things that exist per immaterial spaceless...etc are abstract numbers and a mind? Because Mr Craig said so? I certainly would rather place my "faith" in something that has been shown to exist. That makes more sense than making stuff up as you go in order to find an all powerful being that does not want to be found. Now that I think about it, I cannot see how Mr. Craig could assume that a mind can be disembodied. Is your mind disembodied? Has anyone ever documented a mind that did not have a brain associated with it? Have you seen any scientific evidence that a mind can be disembodied? If Mr. Craig can limit spaceless, immaterial things to a mind and abstract numbers, I choose to limit it to abstract numbers due to the lack of evidence that a mind can be immaterial, spaceless, timeless or eternal. He is saying that the cause is eternal. How does he determine that limitation on eternal things? Is that constraint based on something other than the fact that it conveniently makes his logical argument work? Why must a mindless eternal thing be unchanging? It is in a timeless, spaceless eternal existence. So, it is not constrained by the laws of cause and effect and it surely could be changing. Couldn't that mindless eternal thing be changing and at some point then changed such that it caused spacetime to start? Thus the cause is not eternal but merely an instance of the changing mindless eternal thing.




It would depend on your view of what a mind is... Considering that character, emotion etc are not characterised by any one physical part of the brain it implies that there is another dimension to it, additionally the mechanism of memory storage cannot be fathomed in that all the brain is, is just a myriad of switches... switches for what exactly?

Here is just one of the many videos on the subject..



#120 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:42 PM

It would depend on your view of what a mind is... Considering that character, emotion etc are not characterised by any one physical part of the brain it implies that there is another dimension to it, additionally the mechanism of memory storage cannot be fathomed in that all the brain is, is just a myriad of switches... switches for what exactly?

Really? http://www.ehow.com/...s-emotions.html Damage to the brain has changed emotional responses and even the basic personality of persons who have had that unfortunate occurance. Before you claim that emotions are not part of the brain, maybe you should research it further than looking at a babbling guy on a youtube video.

Here is just one of the many videos on the subject.

Now you're a believer in solipsism?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users