Jump to content


Photo

Proof Of An Intelligent Uncaused Cause - God


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

#221 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

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

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:40 PM

Ran across a definition that seems quite fitting here:

"Certainty" is when all of the evidence available supports a particular conclusion, and no other conclusion can be found.

http://objectivism10...Lecture26.shtml

A house is evidence of a builder, and likewise the universe is evidence for either a mindless cause, or an intelligent cause. It can't be evidence for both (because the universe can't be the result of both causes at once), but it must be evidence for one or the other (since one or the other caused the universe).

Now, from everything that we know about cause and effect, and the related requirement of antecedent conditions, we can be certain that our argument is correct (reasonable burden of proof met). Furthermore, no other conclusion has been found to explain how something could come about without prior/antecedent conditions, thereby potentially enabling mindless causation. So on both counts, our argument meets the provided definition of certainty. We literally have 100% inference that our argument is correct based on all that is known, while objections are merely tossed around with zero evidentiary -or- logical/philosophical support.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#222 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 06:09 AM

Jonas, why do you persist with this false analogy? No offense, but your desperation is palpable. We are not uncreated, eternal, all powerful beings. At least, not the last time I checked with my mom. God's actions do not require a causal chain of mindless events in order to occur. Rather, any single/isolated event that He causes is an act of will, and not one dependent on infinite past events. We've explained this what - 10 or 20 times now? //My tangents are to show that the logic fails in that the limits on the mindless something would also be limits on the mind.// No Jonas, no. A mindless event is not (at all) caused in the same way that an intelligent event is caused. When God created the universe, it was dependent on two primary things: His will (choice) to create the universe, and His power to create the universe. The creation of the universe (i.e., the event itself) was NOT dependent on an infinite causal chain of mindless events prior, "leading up to" the universe.

You haven't "explained" anything. You simply keep saying that an intelligent being has the capability to choose and that prevents causality from affecting that ability to choose. Saying it 20 times doesn't make it any more logical within the framework of the logical proof you are puttng forth.

Now you are saying that God has infinite power. Well, why wasn't that in the original argument? Of course your are right and there must be a God because God is all powerful and, since we all have a large amount of experience with all powerful beings and this experience has been documented in intimate detail by scientists world wide, we know exactly what all powerful means and what it can accomplish. Well, I guess this argument is over now that we know that God is special and can overcome the limitations of any existence in which he finds himself [/sarcasm]

#223 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 06 December 2012 - 08:24 AM

1. You haven't "explained" anything. You simply keep saying that an intelligent being has the capability to choose and that prevents causality from affecting that ability to choose. Saying it 20 times doesn't make it any more logical within the framework of the logical proof you are puttng forth.

2. Now you are saying that God has infinite power. Well, why wasn't that in the original argument?

3. Of course your are right and there must be a God because God is all powerful and, since we all have a large amount of experience with all powerful beings and this experience has been documented in intimate detail by scientists world wide, we know exactly what all powerful means and what it can accomplish. Well, I guess this argument is over now that we know that God is special and can overcome the limitations of any existence in which he finds himself [/sarcasm]


1. Perhaps we say it 20 times because you continue to fail to grasp it.... Ever considered that reason?

2. Umm I have been saying God is all powerful from the start..... Do you not READ my posts? Or must I declare this 20 times for you to at least take notice...

3. As I wrote to Dan, (this uses stuff I quoted)


"There are multiple problems with this line of reasoning. For starters, the objection assumes that the principle in question is an empirical principle formulated by inductive observations of a large collection of somethings (a posteriori). Since every something we encounter was caused to exist by a prior something, we conclude that something only comes from something. It is possible, however, that our experience is limited, and if we encountered a larger collection of somethings we would find at least one example of a something that came into being from nothing. "

You are assuming that there is evidence of such, yet there is none, however this is not a bad thing since

"This characterization of the metaphysical principle misses the boat by a long shot. It is an a priori metaphysical principle whose truth is wholly independent of our experience. A mere reflection on the notions of “nothing” and “something” makes it clear that something cannot come from nothing. Nothing is the absence of any and all things: no matter, no energy, no substance, no potential. For something to come into being, it has to at least have the potential to do so. Since nothingness lacks even potentiality, it is not possible for something to come into being from absolutely nothing. "

As stated its not dependant on experience or evidence it is simply based on logic which stems from what we know about (in this case) nothingness. The same logic is applied to all our posts. Therefore continuing to ask for evidence of timlessness a timeless mind or whatever will demonstrate that you refuse to understand the core of the argument, and prefer to use your minsunderstanding in an innane "rebuttal".
  • goldliger likes this

#224 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:14 PM

1. Perhaps we say it 20 times because you continue to fail to grasp it.... Ever considered that reason? 2. Umm I have been saying God is all powerful from the start..... Do you not READ my posts? Or must I declare this 20 times for you to at least take notice... 3. As I wrote to Dan, (this uses stuff I quoted) "There are multiple problems with this line of reasoning. For starters, the objection assumes that the principle in question is an empirical principle formulated by inductive observations of a large collection of somethings (a posteriori). Since every something we encounter was caused to exist by a prior something, we conclude that something only comes from something. It is possible, however, that our experience is limited, and if we encountered a larger collection of somethings we would find at least one example of a something that came into being from nothing. " You are assuming that there is evidence of such, yet there is none, however this is not a bad thing since "This characterization of the metaphysical principle misses the boat by a long shot. It is an a priori metaphysical principle whose truth is wholly independent of our experience. A mere reflection on the notions of “nothing” and “something” makes it clear that something cannot come from nothing. Nothing is the absence of any and all things: no matter, no energy, no substance, no potential. For something to come into being, it has to at least have the potential to do so. Since nothingness lacks even potentiality, it is not possible for something to come into being from absolutely nothing. " As stated its not dependant on experience or evidence it is simply based on logic which stems from what we know about (in this case) nothingness. The same logic is applied to all our posts. Therefore continuing to ask for evidence of timlessness a timeless mind or whatever will demonstrate that you refuse to understand the core of the argument, and prefer to use your minsunderstanding in an innane "rebuttal".

I wasn't answering you. Plus the OP does not mention "all powerful" as a requirement for the intelligence that is claimed to be first cause.

And your documented experience with all-powerful beings is what exactly? How did you document that experience?[/sarcasm]

#225 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:53 PM

I wasn't answering you. Plus the OP does not mention "all powerful" as a requirement for the intelligence that is claimed to be first cause. And your documented experience with all-powerful beings is what exactly? How did you document that experience?[/sarcasm]


After he answers you, then ask me the same question.

#226 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 06 December 2012 - 03:22 PM

I wasn't answering you. Plus the OP does not mention "all powerful" as a requirement for the intelligence that is claimed to be first cause. And your documented experience with all-powerful beings is what exactly? How did you document that experience?[/sarcasm]



Did you read my post? Seriously I already dealt with this sarcasm point, since it rests on your false misunderstanding of the core of the argument.


As I wrote to Dan, (this uses stuff I quoted)

"There are multiple problems with this line of reasoning. For starters, the objection assumes that the principle in question is an empirical principle formulated by inductive observations of a large collection of somethings (a posteriori). Since every something we encounter was caused to exist by a prior something, we conclude that something only comes from something. It is possible, however, that our experience is limited, and if we encountered a larger collection of somethings we would find at least one example of a something that came into being from nothing. "

You are assuming that there should be evidence of such, yet there is none, however this is not a bad thing since

"This characterization of the metaphysical principle misses the boat by a long shot. It is an a priori metaphysical principle whose truth is wholly independent of our experience. A mere reflection on the notions of “nothing” and “something” makes it clear that something cannot come from nothing. Nothing is the absence of any and all things: no matter, no energy, no substance, no potential. For something to come into being, it has to at least have the potential to do so. Since nothingness lacks even potentiality, it is not possible for something to come into being from absolutely nothing. "

As stated its not dependant on experience or evidence it is simply based on logic which stems from what we know about (in this case) nothingness. The same logic is applied to all our posts. Therefore continuing to ask for evidence of timlessness a timeless mind or whatever will demonstrate that you refuse to understand the core of the argument, and prefer to use your minsunderstanding in an innane "rebuttal".


Seriously read my post


After he answers you, then ask me the same question.


Hes just showing that even if his question is answered he simply won't accept the answer and will ask others the exact same question... As I have asked Jonas before, does he actually want to look like a fool since such behaviour paints that exact picture
  • Calypsis4 and goldliger like this

#227 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 06 December 2012 - 03:30 PM

Gilbo: O.K. good brother.

#228 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:44 PM

@Jonas...

//You haven't "explained" anything. You simply keep saying that an intelligent being has the capability to choose and that prevents causality from affecting that ability to choose. Saying it 20 times doesn't make it any more logical within the framework of the logical proof you are puttng forth.//

Laughable. We've explained it numerous times, from numerous angles, and with numerous analogies.

Scenario/Question # 1: Jonas, imagine right now that you had no parents, and no cause whatsoever. Rather, imagine that you're an eternal, all powerful being. You've always existed, and you always will. What would stop you from creating a new universe at noon tomorrow?

Scenario/Question # 2: Now imagine that you're a mindless, eternal blob of matter that has constantly been changing and morphing, taking on new forms - which are equivalent to new events being caused. How would you ever change into our universe, if an infinite number of changes *had* to occur prior to getting to the point where you change into the universe?

In the first scenario, an intelligent person will understand that the universe does not depend on past changes and events. Rather, it only depends on what is "true" at the precise moment that the universe is created. And what would be true at that moment, is that you exist, and have the power to create the universe as an act of will. Now in the second scenario, an intelligent person will understand that the universe *does* depend on past events. I.e., the precise moment that the universe is created depends on an (impossible) infinite causal chain of past events.

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. This is the difference between mindless causation and intelligent causation.

#229 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:20 AM

After he answers you, then ask me the same question.

I get to write to you again?
Ok. We have been through this before but....
And your documented experience with all-powerful beings is what exactly? How did you document that experience?

#230 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:31 AM

Goldigger,

You believe that you are explaining it and I don't see it that way.

I don't see how the capability to choose eliminates the problem of causality for a timeless immaterial mind when our capability to choose doesn't eliminate the problem of causality for us.

God chooses to create the universe. Was that the first thing He ever did or was there an event before that? What about before that...and before that....going back to eternity past?

We are just going in circles here. I have to ponder this a while and I may not be able to explain my position to you any more that you seem able to explain your position to me.

I am not quitting...I just see no reason to waste bandwidth in this particular case until I can communicate this better. Perhaps another look at the OP will provide better approach that we can discuss.

#231 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:51 AM

jonas

I get to write to you again? Ok. We have been through this before but.... And your documented experience with all-powerful beings is what exactly? How did you document that experience?


Where shall I start? I have seen several thousand personal answers to prayer in the last 44 yrs., including the direct instantaneous healing of at least three people in the last five yrs., including two who work with me on a daily basis and have remained healed from their infirmities for several years. Those sicknesses involved terminal leukemia, endometriosis, and double pneumonia.

Two years ago in the spring I tested to see if the Lord really is omniscient and that He knows my thoughts so I prayed for a work I had come across called Flower Hill Trail which I intended to use for a particular purpose. So I prayed quietly and without telling anyone about it. Only a few hours later I was in a classroom near my office and the teacher of the class opened up the middle drawer of her desk and there was a piece of paper with the words written on it, "Flower Hill T." I asked her about it and she told me she had written that out nine days before and had fully intended to give it to me. She didn't know what 'Flower Hill Trail' was all about nor why she felt she needed to give it to me. Well, I still have that piece of paper in my file and her as a witness. But this kind of thing has happened many times and sometimes in an even more astonishing manner than this.

This is just one of those instances in which God promised,

Isaiah 65:24 "And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear."

Like I said, this is just for starters. But I know by experience that if you won't believe what God says in His written word, the Bible then you won't believe me. His book is supernatural and His Spirit speaks quietly to the conscience of everyone who reads it. Those that reject what that voice says will not believe anything that Christ's followers tell them no matter what it is. Nonetheless, what I said above is all true and without exaggeration.

#232 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 12 December 2012 - 01:14 PM

We have been through this before but.... And your documented experience with all-powerful beings is what exactly? How did you document that experience?


Yet again, did you read my posts?

"There are multiple problems with this line of reasoning. For starters, the objection assumes that the principle in question is an empirical principle formulated by inductive observations of a large collection of somethings (a posteriori). Since every something we encounter was caused to exist by a prior something, we conclude that something only comes from something. It is possible, however, that our experience is limited, and if we encountered a larger collection of somethings we would find at least one example of a something that came into being from nothing.

You are assuming that there should be evidence of such, yet there is none, however this is not a bad thing since

"This characterization of the metaphysical principle misses the boat by a long shot. It is an a priori metaphysical principle whose truth is wholly independent of our experience. A mere reflection on the notions of “nothing” and “something” makes it clear that something cannot come from nothing. Nothing is the absence of any and all things: no matter, no energy, no substance, no potential. For something to come into being, it has to at least have the potential to do so. Since nothingness lacks even potentiality, it is not possible for something to come into being from absolutely nothing. "

As stated its not dependant on experience or evidence it is simply based on logic which stems from what we know about (in this case) nothingness. The same logic is applied to all our posts. Therefore continuing to ask for evidence of timlessness a timeless mind or whatever will demonstrate that you refuse to understand the core of the argument, and prefer to use your minsunderstanding in an innane "rebuttal".




However Calypsis has also given his evidence of God's manifested power which he has observed in life, I doubt you can argue with that.
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#233 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:19 PM

Gilbo: your logic is terrific, my examples are true, but I don't think that skeptic cares. We shall see.

#234 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 12 December 2012 - 06:04 PM

Gilbo: your logic is terrific, my examples are true, but I don't think that skeptic cares. We shall see.


Thanks, but its not entirely mine. I am using the quote I sourced a few pages ago. However it does cut to the heart of the argument hence why I quoted it :)

The 2nd and 4th parts are mine whereas the 1st and 3rd are from this site

http://theosophical....ienced-nothing/

Full quote is the lower half of post #209



I doubt Jonas would care, I've already posted this exact thing to him a few times yet he keeps ploughing ahead demanding evidence of timelessness / all-powerfullness etc, not realising that Dan asked the same thing before and was met with this quote.

#235 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 13 December 2012 - 05:55 AM

jonas Where shall I start? I have seen several thousand personal answers to prayer in the last 44 yrs., including the direct instantaneous healing of at least three people in the last five yrs., including two who work with me on a daily basis and have remained healed from their infirmities for several years. Those sicknesses involved terminal leukemia, endometriosis, and double pneumonia. Two years ago in the spring I tested to see if the Lord really is omniscient and that He knows my thoughts so I prayed for a work I had come across called Flower Hill Trail which I intended to use for a particular purpose. So I prayed quietly and without telling anyone about it. Only a few hours later I was in a classroom near my office and the teacher of the class opened up the middle drawer of her desk and there was a piece of paper with the words written on it, "Flower Hill T." I asked her about it and she told me she had written that out nine days before and had fully intended to give it to me. She didn't know what 'Flower Hill Trail' was all about nor why she felt she needed to give it to me. Well, I still have that piece of paper in my file and her as a witness. But this kind of thing has happened many times and sometimes in an even more astonishing manner than this. This is just one of those instances in which God promised, Isaiah 65:24 "And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear." Like I said, this is just for starters. But I know by experience that if you won't believe what God says in His written word, the Bible then you won't believe me. His book is supernatural and His Spirit speaks quietly to the conscience of everyone who reads it. Those that reject what that voice says will not believe anything that Christ's followers tell them no matter what it is. Nonetheless, what I said above is all true and without exaggeration.

And why should I believe the Bible's claims any more than I should believe the Qur'an or the Hindu texts? Additionally, I have nothing but your word on the veracity of these miracles you believe occurred to you. So, why should I accept your belief that those events are miracles? At least I give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are not lying about your belief that miracles occurred.
If miracles happen around you all the time, why must I jump through so many hoops in order for you to even pray about the little miracle I asked for? Did the three people you saw instantaneously healed have to look up previous miracle witnesses in order for you to pray for them?
Speaking of those healings, do you have something other than the word of these people that they were healed? I assume that you did not see the doctor's diagnosis for the leukemia. Was that person treated in any way besides the prayer? Has that person released his/her medical records and been examined by other doctors to verify that the original diagnosis was correct and that the leukemia is completely gone rather than in remission? If this is a true healing then that person should be willing to be a witness to the world by submitting to examinations by multiple doctors.
What I mean by documentation is just that...documentation. Claiming to be healed is a type of documentation along with friends' testamony that the person was sick and is now better. It is not very good documentation. Better would be testamony of nonreligious people that know the case. Doctor's records along with examination findings before and after the miracle would be better. Filming of a healing that shows an obvious structural change in the person would be better if the possibility of fakery could be mitigated. How about the returning of a limb to an amputee without the use of medical procedures...ever hear of that? I havent.
Come up with a miracle that has the same or better evidence than you require for evolution or don't even bother. Your team set the requirements for evidence in order to believe something. Now you should meet those requirements or don't expect your claims to be accepted.

Now, why don't I believe that you? You assume that I am either lying or deluded when I claim that I would return to my Christian beliefs if that miracle occurred. Since you are a Christian, I assume that you treat others the way you wish to be treated. I doubt the veracity and honesty of your statements on this board without any reason to do so except that you disagree with my beliefs because that is the way you treat me, which must be the way you want people to treat you.

Six words that you say you won't even pray about. You claim to get a miracle simply because you wanted to test God's omnicience but you have already determined that God won't grant my miracle. You won't even make an effort. That speaks volumes about either your charity or your faith.

#236 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:06 AM

Yet again, did you read my posts? "There are multiple problems with this line of reasoning. For starters, the objection assumes that the principle in question is an empirical principle formulated by inductive observations of a large collection of somethings (a posteriori). Since every something we encounter was caused to exist by a prior something, we conclude that something only comes from something. It is possible, however, that our experience is limited, and if we encountered a larger collection of somethings we would find at least one example of a something that came into being from nothing. You are assuming that there should be evidence of such, yet there is none, however this is not a bad thing since "This characterization of the metaphysical principle misses the boat by a long shot. It is an a priori metaphysical principle whose truth is wholly independent of our experience. A mere reflection on the notions of “nothing” and “something” makes it clear that something cannot come from nothing. Nothing is the absence of any and all things: no matter, no energy, no substance, no potential. For something to come into being, it has to at least have the potential to do so. Since nothingness lacks even potentiality, it is not possible for something to come into being from absolutely nothing. " As stated its not dependant on experience or evidence it is simply based on logic which stems from what we know about (in this case) nothingness. The same logic is applied to all our posts. Therefore continuing to ask for evidence of timlessness a timeless mind or whatever will demonstrate that you refuse to understand the core of the argument, and prefer to use your minsunderstanding in an innane "rebuttal". However Calypsis has also given his evidence of God's manifested power which he has observed in life, I doubt you can argue with that.

Yes, I read your posts. I still disagree with them but, as I told goldliger, I am taking a sabatical from this thread because I wish to ponder it a while. My communication with Calypsis was about the implication that there are miracles for which he can produce documentation. It was not about the thread's logical "proof".

I can't argue that he claims to have witnessed miracles because he claims that. I can argue that the documentation of these "miracles" is scanty to the point that I only have his word that something even happened at all.

You, who claims that I am stalling or lying or stupid whenever I post a dissenting opinion, should understand quite well what doubting someone's internet writings is like.

#237 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 13 December 2012 - 11:20 AM

Yes, I read your posts. I still disagree with them but, as I told goldliger, I am taking a sabatical from this thread because I wish to ponder it a while. My communication with Calypsis was about the implication that there are miracles for which he can produce documentation. It was not about the thread's logical "proof". I can't argue that he claims to have witnessed miracles because he claims that. I can argue that the documentation of these "miracles" is scanty to the point that I only have his word that something even happened at all. You, who claims that I am stalling or lying or stupid whenever I post a dissenting opinion, should understand quite well what doubting someone's internet writings is like.


Where have I ever stated that you are lying or stupid?

You kept asking for evidence of an "all powerful being" as can be seen in post# 222 #224 and #229, that is not just about miracles, so please don't try and shift the goal posts by stating that you're only concerned with miracles. Calypsis brought miracles into the discussion as his evidence of God. However in terms of the cause of the universe (as this thread is talking about), the quote I have given you demonstrates that the logic used here is not based on evidence and is entirely independant of our own experience because there is no such evidence, we simply must rely on logical inference due to the fact that there is no evidence on such things.

#238 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

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

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:39 PM

Goldigger, You believe that you are explaining it and I don't see it that way. I don't see how the capability to choose eliminates the problem of causality for a timeless immaterial mind when our capability to choose doesn't eliminate the problem of causality for us. God chooses to create the universe. Was that the first thing He ever did or was there an event before that? What about before that...and before that....going back to eternity past? We are just going in circles here. I have to ponder this a while and I may not be able to explain my position to you any more that you seem able to explain your position to me. I am not quitting...I just see no reason to waste bandwidth in this particular case until I can communicate this better. Perhaps another look at the OP will provide better approach that we can discuss.



First off, you didn't answer my (two) questions above. Why is that? Secondly, human beings are clearly caused, and therefore have *absolutely nothing* to do with the intelligent uncaused cause. You just need to get that out of your mind, as it's completely irrelevant. Thirdly, I believe you're confusing infinite events, with an infinite *causal chain of events*. I will explain the difference... An infinite causal chain of events is where any given event in the chain depends directly on past events such that it can occur (which in turn means an impossible infinite regress). Think of an endless chain of dominos. In a mindless scenario, for any single domino to fall over requires infinite *prior* dominos to fall over (which is impossible). Conversely, an intelligent being who is able to cause events as an act of *will* could tip each individual domino by choice. The former scenario requires an infinite causal chain. The latter scenario does not. It's very simple. One final example: Imagine God jumping up and down for eternity. Does each jump require a past causal chain of events in order to occur? Duhhh, of course not! God jumps when he chooses to jump, and no single jump requires endless past jumps in order to occur. Each jump is an event, in the same way that tipping over one domino at a time is an event, in the same way that creating our universe is an event. But again, in a mindless scenario, jumps and dominos and universes are NOT caused by choice. Rather, an infinite causal chain of prior events (imagine the dominos once again!) must occur in order for any single/given event to occur.

#239 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:55 AM

First off, you didn't answer my (two) questions above. Why is that?

Because I need to think about it.

Secondly, human beings are clearly caused, and therefore have *absolutely nothing* to do with the intelligent uncaused cause. You just need to get that out of your mind, as it's completely irrelevant. Thirdly, I believe you're confusing infinite events, with an infinite *causal chain of events*. I will explain the difference... An infinite causal chain of events is where any given event in the chain depends directly on past events such that it can occur (which in turn means an impossible infinite regress). Think of an endless chain of dominos. In a mindless scenario, for any single domino to fall over requires infinite *prior* dominos to fall over (which is impossible). Conversely, an intelligent being who is able to cause events as an act of *will* could tip each individual domino by choice. The former scenario requires an infinite causal chain. The latter scenario does not. It's very simple. One final example: Imagine God jumping up and down for eternity. Does each jump require a past causal chain of events in order to occur? Duhhh, of course not! God jumps when he chooses to jump, and no single jump requires endless past jumps in order to occur. Each jump is an event, in the same way that tipping over one domino at a time is an event, in the same way that creating our universe is an event. But again, in a mindless scenario, jumps and dominos and universes are NOT caused by choice. Rather, an infinite causal chain of prior events (imagine the dominos once again!) must occur in order for any single/given event to occur.

No, I don't see the difference. That is why I must think about it.

#240 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:05 AM

Where have I ever stated that you are lying or stupid? You kept asking for evidence of an "all powerful being" as can be seen in post# 222 #224 and #229, that is not just about miracles, so please don't try and shift the goal posts by stating that you're only concerned with miracles. Calypsis brought miracles into the discussion as his evidence of God. However in terms of the cause of the universe (as this thread is talking about), the quote I have given you demonstrates that the logic used here is not based on evidence and is entirely independant of our own experience because there is no such evidence, we simply must rely on logical inference due to the fact that there is no evidence on such things.

Saying that I am trying to shift the goalposts is implying that I am being dishonest. Sure you don't go right out an say it but you don't cover it up very well either. In that particular case I was only concerned about Calypsis' miracle claim. As I said before, I am thinking about the logical proof and will get back to it.

Repeating the same thing over and over and saying things like "Must I keep reposting this..." is implying that I am stupid or willfully deluded. That is the way I see it, especially when I read yours and Calypsis' posts in other threads where you denigrate all "evolutionists".

Since there is no evidence then the logical proof must be examined fully as to its assumptions or the veracity of its logical inferences based on those assumptions.

I note that you don't believe miracles are evidence of God.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users