Jump to content


Photo

Proof Of An Intelligent Uncaused Cause - God


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

#161 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 26 November 2012 - 07:16 PM

Your three criteria are simply declared as timeless, spaceless and omnipotent. I will agree with the first two because of the causality problem.

1. When did you become an all-knowing physicist?

2. I thought you were learning to be a biochemist.

3. What is it about the beginning of the universe that you know such that you can declare all of these things require omnipotence to have them come about?

4. You have no idea what timeless, spaceless existence is or the limitations placed on any "thing" that is in that existence.

5. You can't declare what abilities are necessary for something that is timeless, and spaceless just because those abilities fit your version of a God.

6. However, mindless things change all the time in our reality. Electromagnetic radiation changes in intensity and direction of motion as it propagates from one place to another. Heat moves from hot objects to cold ones changing the temperature of both.

7. Why would mindless things be unable to change if they were spaceless, and timeless?

8. Why is choice necessary if a mindless thing can change and timeless, spaceless mindless things are at least as plausible as timeless spaceless intelligent things?

9. Mindless things change in our realithy all the time so I am not claiming something that defies what we see. Keeping within its parameters does not prevent the mindless thing from causing a change in something outside itself.

10. No decision is necessary for a hot object to change the temperature of a cold object next to it. Again, you don't get to decide what the limitations of a timeless existence are.

11. The thing is timeless...that means there is no anticedent and there is no logical reason for us to determine that an anticedent is necessary for change to occur in a timeless existence.

12. You have not been using logical lines of inference because you continually infer that a timeless spaceless existence should follow the rules that govern the reality that we live in. That is an assumption that you cannot logically support and the rest of your argument hinges on that assumption.

13. Support your assumption that the timeless spaceless existence that brought about our reality was required to follow the physics that governs our reality. If you can't do that then you can't support your argument logically.


1. Did I ever say that? Please demonstrate a quote... As I said it was pretty self-explanatory... I don't need to be all-knowing to know something that is self-explanatory ;)

2. No, a Biotechnologist however its close.

3. This has already been explained over and over and over.. Intelligence is required as a casual factor as well as being able to choose to defy the anticedent operating procedures that a mindless cause would be limited by.

4. I never said I knew about those things, what I have been TRYING to drive home to you is the limitations you put on the cause by calling it mindless.

5. Care to read the entire thread again, since everyone here has given more than just what they think God should be.... Ergo you're just being difficult for the sake of being so.

6. Sigh you need to learn to READ my posts... Since this was already covered in the bulk of it... which you "replied" to... Here it is again...

"3. Sigh... Already been done via my recent posts but I guess you prefer to just ignore their implications. From post #147 just above

"I have staked my claim in the logic that a mindless thing cannot choose to operate beyond what it is / set to do. A (mindless) clock doesn't suddenly turn its hands into legs and walk around does it? A (mindless) computer doesn't choose to turn itself on and do things without input? No.. It follows its parameters... This is observed all over in reality so if you wish to claim something different to what we see in reality you're going to need evidence.... Rather than just a statement based on opinion."


4. See point 3 since its the same thing... Since choice comes from intelligence, meaning no mindless cause.

5. See point 3, as I said, a mindless thing following its parameters is what we see in reality, you have no evidence to state otherwise, hence if you wish to claim something that defies what we see in reality you are going to need evidence... (Lest atheism be based on a personal want rather than logic).

6. That is part of its parameters..... You've mistaken change within what the mindless thing is capable of, a clocks hands change position, (because that is what it is set to do), with change that occurs from making a choice which defies the anticedent conditions prior to the choice.. For example the same clock cannot "decide" to become a ballet dancer.

7. Again change is not the issue here, and your attempt to "change" it, indicates a sleight of hand being played, (though this is obvious by your attempt to bring up points that have already been debunked, by myself and others). What is the issue is the anticedent conditions of the thing, a mindless timeless cause cannot choose to create a temporal event."


Me- post #152


7. Again already dealt with this... Continuing to ask questions after they have been dealt with looks a tad foolish...

"Again change is not the issue here, and your attempt to "change" it, indicates a sleight of hand being played, (though this is obvious by your attempt to bring up points that have already been debunked, by myself and others). What is the issue is the anticedent conditions of the thing, a mindless timeless cause cannot choose to create a temporal event."

8. Did you read my post at all? I assumed you did since you are "replying" to it... However you keep on asking the same question which I have already shown to be, a slight of hand / your confusion on what we are discussing. We are not talking about mere change, we are discussing the anticedent conditions of something. A timeless immaterial cause which is mindless cannot choose to do anything or create anything that is not timeless or immaterial since it is mindless and therefore doesn't "know" any different.

However another point I made earlier was that intelligence is required as a matter of creativity.. How could a mindless thing CREATE anything, let alone the information rich DNA code.... (Since based on our current evidence, information only ever comes from intelligence). Ergo more evidence of an intelligent cause...


9. That is the point!! I'm not saying it cannot create a universe, I am saying that within its parameters the universe it creates would be timeless and immaterial since they are the parameters the mindless cause would operate to since that is what it is... Unless you claim that somehow the parameters were different etc... However doing so would invoke Okkams razor as you'd be increasing assumptions unnecessarily... Meaning God IS the logical choice.

10. Sigh.. Point 6, 7 and 8

11. There are anticedent conditions, as per the parameters the cause would need to operate by... It is YOU who is imposing limitations here since you claim the cause to be mindless. An intelligent cause would have no limitations whatsoever since its intelligent and thus can use its power in anyway possible. A mindless cause is limited to what it is and that is it, as I said where in reality have you ever seen a mindless thing operate outside of its parameters? ie- computer turning itself on and playing chess against itself, the clock that uses its hands as legs...etc etc etc.

12. No absolutely not true I have been saying that a MINDLESS cause is limited in its operation since it cannot "know" anything outside of its own existence, ie- timelessness and spacelessness... Ergo it cannot create something outside of those parameters.

13. I never said that, so your strawman isn't going to fly... I have been talking about a MINDLESS cause, and the limitations imposed from its mindlessness. If you cannot see that then I suggest you re-read my posts over and over till you do.

#162 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 26 November 2012 - 07:19 PM

Um, that's not the argument


I share your pain ;)
  • goldliger likes this

#163 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:03 AM

What a fool you are (the fool hath said in his heart there is no God, Pslam 14:1). When I send a message to my dad that I need $125 for something and I get an envelope with $125 in it...It don't stand there and argue with anyone where it came from. I KNOW where it came from. And when I once prayed for $206.80 for an LP fuel bill in the middle of winter because they wouldn't give me a fill-up unless I paid what was owed...and that $206.80 came from three different unexpected sources...then I know who the ultimate source was. I have seen this sort of thing repeatedly through the years.

Another testimony that I have no way of verifying. Also, was your prayer in private such that no one else even knew you needed the money? I can ask all sorts of questions about this story and still not get any verification one way or another. You can end all the speculation by simply typing in the six-word sentence.

Now concerning UKChatterbox. At least you were honest enough to admit the site was down...which I discovered myself a day or so after we last communicated. Nonetheless I told the truth in the matter and I am not backing down to you. Spiritmover, who is now known as Jean White (formerly Jean Goth) lives on the north side of London and she attends a Baptist congregation in that area. I regret having lost contact with her for I could potentially put you in direct touch with her. But then, you obviously have no heart to believe that God is real and truly answers the prayers of those who call upon Him in truth. So what about imdb? I likewise took a look at that website to see if you went on board to ask those two posters about what happened but I never saw your name nor any questions from anyone about that incident. I even checked 'Fiendishly Cunning Chix' to see if you had approached her about the matter. It took me all of about 1 minute to find her, (& likewise you could have done so yourself) but neither your name nor the questions you should have asked were there. So your half-hearted effort resulted in just what you wanted it to result in: nothing. But again, nonetheless, what I prayed for is a matter of public record in the archives of imdb and had you really cared enough to look like I told you then you would have found it.

You are correct, I didn't look on imdb. However, I will. The back-and-forth might take a few days.

So I ask you; what are you doing here on this Christian/creationist website, Mr. athiest? Are you hear because you wish to convert some of us to your accidentalist views about the world and to your hopeless future and despair? Well, I want nothing of it and I think my brethren feel much the same way.

First, I am not trying to convert anyone. Can you quote me anywhere saying that you or your brethren should give up your beliefs? However, I have been told a number of times that I need to embrace Jesus.
Second, I am here because it is a debate site that claims to offer civil discussion of evolution, creationism and other subjects. You don't get to decide what I can say as long as I am civil. Unless, expressing my opinion about these subjects is now uncivil, the best you can do is stop reading my posts. Frankly, I don't give a hoot-n-a-holler what you want or don't want with regards to what I write. So, unless you are a moderator and have a rule violation that you can ban me for, you can just buzz off.

Excuse me while I stand and dust myself off.

Do you actually read your Bible? Try and get the quote right. Matt 10:14, Mark 6:11, or Luke 9:5

#164 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:17 AM

I share your pain ;)/>


The reason I keep repeating my argument is because you never address it. You simply repeat what you and Mr. Craig wrote.

Your argument requires the first cause to be or be in a state of eternal timless spaceless existence. You then proceed to put the limitations of our space-and-time existence on the timeless spaceless existence but provide no logical reason for doing so. Any statement made afterward that depends on those limitations being in place for the timeless spaceless existence, are based on an unproven assumption and are therefore not a valid conclusion.

Additionally, you require a mindless thing to follow those limitations but not an intelligent thing despite the fact that intelligent things in our space-and-time existence are required to follow those limitations.

Those are my objections to your argument. You can address them or repeat what you have said a number of times before. Your choice.

#165 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 28 November 2012 - 08:50 AM

The reason I keep repeating my argument is because you never address it. You simply repeat what you and Mr. Craig wrote. Your argument requires the first cause to be or be in a state of eternal timless spaceless existence. You then proceed to put the limitations of our space-and-time existence on the timeless spaceless existence but provide no logical reason for doing so. Any statement made afterward that depends on those limitations being in place for the timeless spaceless existence, are based on an unproven assumption and are therefore not a valid conclusion. Additionally, you require a mindless thing to follow those limitations but not an intelligent thing despite the fact that intelligent things in our space-and-time existence are required to follow those limitations. Those are my objections to your argument. You can address them or repeat what you have said a number of times before. Your choice.


No Jonas if you bother to read my replies you will realise that I have addressed your argument at every turn... This is very similar to the older threads where you did exactly the same thing, where I had to resort to quoting myself to demonstrate where you either misread what I have said or just ignored it, which then you complained that I was making you look silly....

Would you like me to do so here? Actually I will since in my reply to you you have yet again made false claims which I have already addressed... (Even when I put mindless in capitals.... Seriously you need to read my posts more).

I am not imposing any limitations on a spaceless timeless cause (as I have said over and over), it is you who is imposing limitations by claiming the cause is MINDLESS, since being mindless is a limitation in that the cause has no creativity or causal power. Additionally since it is MINDLESS, even if it could somehow create something without creativity, it is required to follow the anticedent conditions when it creates things since it "doesn't know of any other way". I have demonstrated how this is in keeping with how other MINDLESS things operate therefore it is you who is making a claim that goes against what we observe in reality, (as I have said), and I als o said that if you want to claim otherwise you need evidence of your own to go against these observations.

In other words, its not a response to go "nah uh" and then repeat the question over and over, despite it being answered...

(Additionally the reason why I used Craigs argument is because he covers it and solves it.... It is you who is refusing to see reason)



3. This has already been explained over and over and over.. Intelligence is required as a casual factor as well as being able to choose to defy the anticedent operating procedures that a mindless cause would be limited by.

4. I never said I knew about those things, what I have been TRYING to drive home to you is the limitations you put on the cause by calling it mindless.

5. Care to read the entire thread again, since everyone here has given more than just what they think God should be.... Ergo you're just being difficult for the sake of being so.

6. Sigh you need to learn to READ my posts... Since this was already covered in the bulk of it... which you "replied" to... Here it is again...

"3. Sigh... Already been done via my recent posts but I guess you prefer to just ignore their implications. From post #147 just above "I have staked my claim in the logic that a mindless thing cannot choose to operate beyond what it is / set to do. A (mindless) clock doesn't suddenly turn its hands into legs and walk around does it? A (mindless) computer doesn't choose to turn itself on and do things without input? No.. It follows its parameters... This is observed all over in reality so if you wish to claim something different to what we see in reality you're going to need evidence.... Rather than just a statement based on opinion." 4. See point 3 since its the same thing... Since choice comes from intelligence, meaning no mindless cause. 5. See point 3, as I said, a mindless thing following its parameters is what we see in reality, you have no evidence to state otherwise, hence if you wish to claim something that defies what we see in reality you are going to need evidence... (Lest atheism be based on a personal want rather than logic). 6. That is part of its parameters..... You've mistaken change within what the mindless thing is capable of, a clocks hands change position, (because that is what it is set to do), with change that occurs from making a choice which defies the anticedent conditions prior to the choice.. For example the same clock cannot "decide" to become a ballet dancer. 7. Again change is not the issue here, and your attempt to "change" it, indicates a sleight of hand being played, (though this is obvious by your attempt to bring up points that have already been debunked, by myself and others). What is the issue is the anticedent conditions of the thing, a mindless timeless cause cannot choose to create a temporal event."

Me- post #152


7. Again already dealt with this... Continuing to ask questions after they have been dealt with looks a tad foolish...

"Again change is not the issue here, and your attempt to "change" it, indicates a sleight of hand being played, (though this is obvious by your attempt to bring up points that have already been debunked, by myself and others). What is the issue is the anticedent conditions of the thing, a mindless timeless cause cannot choose to create a temporal event."

8. Did you read my post at all? I assumed you did since you are "replying" to it... However you keep on asking the same question which I have already shown to be, a slight of hand / your confusion on what we are discussing. We are not talking about mere change, we are discussing the anticedent conditions of something. A timeless immaterial cause which is mindless cannot choose to do anything or create anything that is not timeless or immaterial since it is mindless and therefore doesn't "know" any different. However another point I made earlier was that intelligence is required as a matter of creativity.. How could a mindless thing CREATE anything, let alone the information rich DNA code.... (Since based on our current evidence, information only ever comes from intelligence). Ergo more evidence of an intelligent cause...

9. That is the point!! I'm not saying it cannot create a universe, I am saying that within its parameters the universe it creates would be timeless and immaterial since they are the parameters the mindless cause would operate to since that is what it is... Unless you claim that somehow the parameters were different etc... However doing so would invoke Okkams razor as you'd be increasing assumptions unnecessarily... Meaning God IS the logical choice.

10. Sigh.. Point 6, 7 and 8 11. There are anticedent conditions, as per the parameters the cause would need to operate by... It is YOU who is imposing limitations here since you claim the cause to be mindless. An intelligent cause would have no limitations whatsoever since its intelligent and thus can use its power in anyway possible. A mindless cause is limited to what it is and that is it, as I said where in reality have you ever seen a mindless thing operate outside of its parameters? ie- computer turning itself on and playing chess against itself, the clock that uses its hands as legs...etc etc etc.

12. No absolutely not true I have been saying that a MINDLESS cause is limited in its operation since it cannot "know" anything outside of its own existence, ie- timelessness and spacelessness... Ergo it cannot create something outside of those parameters.

13. I never said that, so your strawman isn't going to fly... I have been talking about a MINDLESS cause, and the limitations imposed from its mindlessness. If you cannot see that then I suggest you re-read my posts over and over till you do.



#166 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 28 November 2012 - 09:40 AM

Another testimony that I have no way of verifying. Also, was your prayer in private such that no one else even knew you needed the money? I can ask all sorts of questions about this story and still not get any verification one way or another. You can end all the speculation by simply typing in the six-word sentence. You are correct, I didn't look on imdb. However, I will. The back-and-forth might take a few days. First, I am not trying to convert anyone. Can you quote me anywhere saying that you or your brethren should give up your beliefs? However, I have been told a number of times that I need to embrace Jesus. Second, I am here because it is a debate site that claims to offer civil discussion of evolution, creationism and other subjects. You don't get to decide what I can say as long as I am civil. Unless, expressing my opinion about these subjects is now uncivil, the best you can do is stop reading my posts. Frankly, I don't give a hoot-n-a-holler what you want or don't want with regards to what I write. So, unless you are a moderator and have a rule violation that you can ban me for, you can just buzz off. Do you actually read your Bible? Try and get the quote right. Matt 10:14, Mark 6:11, or Luke 9:5

First, I would be glad to 'buzz off' my dishonest counterpart. Since you have made it clear that no amount of evidence given you will touch that stone-cold heart of yours. Secondly, I didn't quote the verses...I merely did what you challenged me to. Lastly, the six word sentence is no problem for the God I serve, but He knows you won't be converted no matter what...for you have already been given enough evidence to know I am telling the truth...furthermore, such evidence for the divine is in scripture which YOU have utterly rejected. Bye.

#167 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 28 November 2012 - 10:10 AM

Gilbo: "In other words, its not a response to go "nah uh" and then repeat the question over and over, despite it being answered..."

Quite.

Much like another atheist who posted here until recently...recently banned.

#168 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 28 November 2012 - 10:11 AM

First, I would be glad to 'buzz off' my dishonest counterpart. Since you have made it clear that no amount of evidence given you will touch that stone-cold heart of yours. Secondly, I didn't quote the verses...I merely did what you challenged me to. Lastly, the six word sentence is no problem for the God I serve, but He knows you won't be converted no matter what...for you have already been given enough evidence to know I am telling the truth...furthermore, such evidence for the divine is in scripture which YOU have utterly rejected. Bye.

Please show me where I have lied before you call me dishonest. I guess your unsubstantiated insults are ok because you are so righteous.

What's it like to have God confide in you that I would not be converted no matter what. I wonder why a God that wants everyone to be saved doesn't care to convert me and even tells you not to bother? Seems a little contradictory.
Instead He has you call me a liar when I didn't lie to you. Are you an example of the kind of representative that He wants to present to a dying world? It's no wonder that the last place the sinners want to go when they have a problem is the church.

Think for a moment, if someone told you that they prayed to the Hindu god, Vishnu, and they got exactly the amount of money they needed from sources they didn't expect. Would you believe that Vishnu is one of the true gods because of that person's story?
Take each one of your events, change the name of the god that was prayed to and then pretend that story was told to you on an internet forum. Would the story be believable to you if the god was different? What would you ask for in the way of proof? More or less than you ask for when criticizing evolution?

I have no doubt that you believe these things are proof of God and that there is no other explanations. However, I am not a witness to the events so I have nothing but your word on what happened. I don't know you beyond your presence here on this board so your word means nothing to me. Testimonies mean very little to a person who doesn't have one.

#169 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 28 November 2012 - 10:18 AM

Please show me where I have lied before you call me dishonest. I guess your unsubstantiated insults are ok because you are so righteous.


Jonas you have on multiple threads claimed that no-one has addressed your questions when an objective reader can see that we have answered all your questions, ergo that is being dishonest on your part, as in trying to incite something that never occured.

As evidence of your claims I'd ask you to put up quotes which demonstrate these instances of not addressing you, if it has occured at least then you'd get an answer, and if not then we can get an apology.

#170 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 28 November 2012 - 10:20 AM

No Jonas if you bother to read my replies you will realise that I have addressed your argument at every turn... This is very similar to the older threads where you did exactly the same thing, where I had to resort to quoting myself to demonstrate where you either misread what I have said or just ignored it, which then you complained that I was making you look silly.... Would you like me to do so here? Actually I will since in my reply to you you have yet again made false claims which I have already addressed... (Even when I put mindless in capitals.... Seriously you need to read my posts more). I am not imposing any limitations on a spaceless timeless cause (as I have said over and over), it is you who is imposing limitations by claiming the cause is MINDLESS, since being mindless is a limitation in that the cause has no creativity or causal power. Additionally since it is MINDLESS, even if it could somehow create something without creativity, it is required to follow the anticedent conditions when it creates things since it "doesn't know of any other way". I have demonstrated how this is in keeping with how other MINDLESS things operate therefore it is you who is making a claim that goes against what we observe in reality, (as I have said), and I als o said that if you want to claim otherwise you need evidence of your own to go against these observations. In other words, its not a response to go "nah uh" and then repeat the question over and over, despite it being answered... (Additionally the reason why I used Craigs argument is because he covers it and solves it.... It is you who is refusing to see reason)

I did not say the mindless thing has creativity. Causal power is a different matter. Hot objects have the power to cause objects around them to increase in temperature. Electromagnetic energy has the power to cause electrons in the atoms of an object to change their orbits. Gravity has the power to move an object closer to it. All of those things are mindless and don't have creativity.

You can't show that the universe was a created thing or a thing that has changed form from another thing.

Where is it that you show why an eternal timless spaceless thing must follow the rules of our space and time universe?

#171 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 28 November 2012 - 10:25 AM

Jonas you have on multiple threads claimed that no-one has addressed your questions when an objective reader can see that we have answered all your questions, ergo that is being dishonest on your part, as in trying to incite something that never occured. As evidence of your claims I'd ask you to put up quotes which demonstrate these instances of not addressing you, if it has occured at least then you'd get an answer, and if not then we can get an apology.

I am not being dishonest. I truly don't believe you have addressed my questions adequately despite the fact that you may think you have.

We are looking at things from different points of view and what seems obvious to you (answers to prayer...etc) may not be obvious to me. To call me a liar because I don't get your point seems a bit more aggressive than I would expect from someone who is trying to convey an idea that he feels is very important.

#172 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 28 November 2012 - 10:43 AM

1. I did not say the mindless thing has creativity.

2.Causal power is a different matter. Hot objects have the power to cause objects around them to increase in temperature. Electromagnetic energy has the power to cause electrons in the atoms of an object to change their orbits. Gravity has the power to move an object closer to it.

3. All of those things are mindless and don't have creativity.

4. You can't show that the universe was a created thing or a thing that has changed form from another thing.

5. Where is it that you show why an eternal timless spaceless thing must follow the rules of our space and time universe?


Forgive the capitals I use them for emphasis since it seems bolding and underlining the text doesn't work for you.


1. Did I say you did? You're totally not getting it!!! How can something create something without creativity? I'll let you ponder that.

2. Causal power is about CREATING SOMETHING, (as per Craigs initial claim, which means you've been confused since the start), not about changing itself. I have already told you that this is not the point, but you continue to refuse to understand. This is getting tiring. Must I repeat myself till the cows come home and I am black and blue till you understand or is this a "debate tactic" so that way you get the last word and claim victory?

I said this is post # 152 and repeated it again in post # 161... Lets hope third times the charm...

"7. Again change is not the issue here, and your attempt to "change" it, indicates a sleight of hand being played, (though this is obvious by your attempt to bring up points that have already been debunked, by myself and others). What is the issue is the anticedent conditions of the thing, a mindless timeless cause cannot choose to create a temporal event."


3. As I have said THEY ARE FOLLOWING THEIR PARAMETERS. Again, a MINDLESS THING CAN ONLY FOLLOW ITS PARAMETERS. SINCE THE CAUSE IS TIMELESS AND SPACELESS THESE ARE ITS PARAMETERS, WHICH WOULD ALSO APPLY TO ANYTHING IT CREATES. THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THIS UNIVERSE IS NOT TIMELESS OR SPACELESS IMPLIES AN INTELLIGENT CAUSE WHICH CAN CHOOSE TO OPERATE BEYOND OR WITHOUT ITS PARAMETERS. A MINDLESS THING CANNOT DO THIS SINCE IT ONLY "KNOWS" WHAT ITS PARAMETERS ARE, IT SIMPLY DOESN'T "KNOW" ANY OTHER WAY... (I have said this like 5 / 6 times now)

I have repeatedly made this point over and over in different ways to help you understand. (i'm only getting my quotes from this page since I can't be bothered scouring the thread for them all... Since there is a high probability you won't read this, or just misinterpret it, or ignore it.)

"That is part of its parameters..... You've mistaken change within what the mindless thing is capable of, a clocks hands change position, (because that is what it is set to do), with change that occurs from making a choice which defies the anticedent conditions prior to the choice.. For example the same clock cannot "decide" to become a ballet dancer."




4. Um yeah, the first half of this thread debunked your attempt at the infinite past claim, which is denoted here. I suggest you READ the thread again. If this universe is changed from something else then how did the something else start? At some point you get to a begining so essentially your reply only delays the inevitable rather than solves it or anything... A flyweight objection.

5. Did I say that? Please quote me?

I did say that from what we know about mindless things a mindless cause would be less likely / less logical than an intelligent cause. I also said that you'd be assuming stuff unnecessarily meaning due to Occams razor an intelligent cause is the more rational... (But I guess you ignored this... yet again)....

"9. That is the point!! I'm not saying it cannot create a universe, I am saying that within its parameters the universe it creates would be timeless and immaterial since they are the parameters the mindless cause would operate to since that is what it is... Unless you claim that somehow the parameters were different etc... However doing so would invoke Okkams razor as you'd be increasing assumptions unnecessarily... Meaning God IS the logical choice."

#173 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 28 November 2012 - 11:28 AM

Please show me where I have lied before you call me dishonest. I guess your unsubstantiated insults are ok because you are so righteous. What's it like to have God confide in you that I would not be converted no matter what. I wonder why a God that wants everyone to be saved doesn't care to convert me and even tells you not to bother? Seems a little contradictory. Instead He has you call me a liar when I didn't lie to you. Are you an example of the kind of representative that He wants to present to a dying world? It's no wonder that the last place the sinners want to go when they have a problem is the church. Think for a moment, if someone told you that they prayed to the Hindu god, Vishnu, and they got exactly the amount of money they needed from sources they didn't expect. Would you believe that Vishnu is one of the true gods because of that person's story? Take each one of your events, change the name of the god that was prayed to and then pretend that story was told to you on an internet forum. Would the story be believable to you if the god was different? What would you ask for in the way of proof? More or less than you ask for when criticizing evolution? I have no doubt that you believe these things are proof of God and that there is no other explanations. However, I am not a witness to the events so I have nothing but your word on what happened. I don't know you beyond your presence here on this board so your word means nothing to me. Testimonies mean very little to a person who doesn't have one.


And just why should I try to convince someone who has dishonestly dismissed everything I told you...including the publicly documented resurrections from the dead? Everything I told you was the truth and that's that. So forget it! You told me to 'buzz off' now I will invite you to likewise stop posting me.

See you on that great and coming day when the whole truth will be known & no one will deny it.

#174 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 28 November 2012 - 05:07 PM

If you disagree with my points Jonas you need to demonstrate your evidence for such, I have asked you to do so multiple times, why are you witholding the evidence... (this is the kind of behaviour I based my thread on).

#175 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 08:16 AM

Forgive the capitals I use them for emphasis since it seems bolding and underlining the text doesn't work for you. 1. Did I say you did? You're totally not getting it!!! How can something create something without creativity? I'll let you ponder that.

Why is the only option creation? Couldn't our space-and-time existence have been change into its current form from something else? This whole spaceless timeless existence lends itself to all sorts of possibilities because we don't really have a clue what the physics of a spaceless timeless existence could possibly be.

2. Causal power is about CREATING SOMETHING, (as per Craigs initial claim, which means you've been confused since the start), not about changing itself. I have already told you that this is not the point, but you continue to refuse to understand. This is getting tiring. Must I repeat myself till the cows come home and I am black and blue till you understand or is this a "debate tactic" so that way you get the last word and claim victory? I said this is post # 152 and repeated it again in post # 161... Lets hope third times the charm... "7. Again change is not the issue here, and your attempt to "change" it, indicates a sleight of hand being played, (though this is obvious by your attempt to bring up points that have already been debunked, by myself and others). What is the issue is the anticedent conditions of the thing, a mindless timeless cause cannot choose to create a temporal event."

Your frustration not withstanding, you have not actually refuted what I am saying, from my point of view. You have not shown that antecedent conditions are necessary for a timeless spaceless existence. Until you show that, you cannot say that a mindless thing cannot induce a change that causes the "creation" of our space-and-time existence.

3. As I have said THEY ARE FOLLOWING THEIR PARAMETERS. Again, a MINDLESS THING CAN ONLY FOLLOW ITS PARAMETERS. SINCE THE CAUSE IS TIMELESS AND SPACELESS THESE ARE ITS PARAMETERS, WHICH WOULD ALSO APPLY TO ANYTHING IT CREATES. THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THIS UNIVERSE IS NOT TIMELESS OR SPACELESS IMPLIES AN INTELLIGENT CAUSE WHICH CAN CHOOSE TO OPERATE BEYOND OR WITHOUT ITS PARAMETERS. A MINDLESS THING CANNOT DO THIS SINCE IT ONLY "KNOWS" WHAT ITS PARAMETERS ARE, IT SIMPLY DOESN'T "KNOW" ANY OTHER WAY... (I have said this like 5 / 6 times now) I have repeatedly made this point over and over in different ways to help you understand. (i'm only getting my quotes from this page since I can't be bothered scouring the thread for them all... Since there is a high probability you won't read this, or just misinterpret it, or ignore it.) "That is part of its parameters..... You've mistaken change within what the mindless thing is capable of, a clocks hands change position, (because that is what it is set to do), with change that occurs from making a choice which defies the anticedent conditions prior to the choice.. For example the same clock cannot "decide" to become a ballet dancer."

Repeating yourself is not explaining your point. If I didn't understand before, I am not going to understand later.
Why can't one of the "parameters" of the mindless timeless spaceless thing be to change constantly and one of those changes "creates" space-and-time existences? Since we cannot quantify the limitations in a spaceless timeless existence, we cannot logically eliminate this possibility.

4. Um yeah, the first half of this thread debunked your attempt at the infinite past claim, which is denoted here. I suggest you READ the thread again. If this universe is changed from something else then how did the something else start? At some point you get to a begining so essentially your reply only delays the inevitable rather than solves it or anything... A flyweight objection.

That "debunk" requires that the spaceless timeless existence follows the physics of our space-and-time existence. Neither you nor Mr. Craig have established that and I don't see how you can. Because we don't know the physics of the spaceless timeless existence we cannot know that the universe even needed the something else to "start". That's assuming "start" has any meaning in the timeless spaceless existence.

5. Did I say that? Please quote me? I did say that from what we know about mindless things a mindless cause would be less likely / less logical than an intelligent cause. I also said that you'd be assuming stuff unnecessarily meaning due to Occams razor an intelligent cause is the more rational... (But I guess you ignored this... yet again).... "9. That is the point!! I'm not saying it cannot create a universe, I am saying that within its parameters the universe it creates would be timeless and immaterial since they are the parameters the mindless cause would operate to since that is what it is... Unless you claim that somehow the parameters were different etc... However doing so would invoke Okkams razor as you'd be increasing assumptions unnecessarily... Meaning God IS the logical choice."

Why is a timeless immaterial mindless thing limited to "creating" a timeless immaterial universe while an timeless immaterial thing is not limited to "creating" a timeless immaterial universe. You are an intelligent thing. Can you creating something that is outside of your time-and-space existence?

An intelligent cause for creating things in this universe may be more rational depending on whether we can recognize that item as being created. How does that rationale apply to an existence that is timeless and immaterial?

Mr Craig's argument depends on the idea that for a mindless thing to cause a change, an antecedent action must have occurred to the mindless thing. However, the timeless immaterial existence may not be limited in such a way.
Logically, we cannot perceive of a timeless immaterial existence much beyond the use of those two words. What does it truly mean to exist timelessly? What does it look like or feel like? Is there motion in an immaterial existence? How does motion occur if there is no time in which it can occur and not material for it to occur in?
We don't have any logical answer to those questions. How, then, can Mr. Craig claim that a timeless immaterial existence has causality limitations?

#176 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 08:23 AM

If you disagree with my points Jonas you need to demonstrate your evidence for such, I have asked you to do so multiple times, why are you witholding the evidence... (this is the kind of behaviour I based my thread on).

This is a logical argument. I only have to show that your assumptions are faulty (ie...you don't know the limitations of a timeless immaterial existence). If the assumptions are faulty, the conclusions are faulty. It doesn't eliminate the existence of God, if He does indeed exist, but it does show that you cannot logically show that He exists.

I have seen this argument used by creationists. They say that since we cannot know how fast radioactive decay occurred in the past, we cannot know the age of the Earth's rocks based on the amount of decay products in the rock.

#177 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:44 AM

And just why should I try to convince someone who has dishonestly dismissed everything I told you...including the publicly documented resurrections from the dead? Everything I told you was the truth and that's that. So forget it! You told me to 'buzz off' now I will invite you to likewise stop posting me. See you on that great and coming day when the whole truth will be known & no one will deny it.

You were the one who posted this:

So I ask you; what are you doing here on this Christian/creationist website, Mr. athiest? Are you hear because you wish to convert some of us to your accidentalist views about the world and to your hopeless future and despair? Well, I want nothing of it and I think my brethren feel much the same way.

I took this as your telling me that you wanted me to stop posting here. I took great exception to your telling me that my opinions were not welcomed and responded in kind. My point was that you do not have to write to me or render an opinion on what I post. If I respond to your writings, that is up to me. I suppose there is an ignore capability here and you could use it, if you so desire.

Just because I don't believe the stories that you point out to me, doesn't mean I am dishonest. You don't believe the information put out by mainstream biologists but I have not called you dishonest for not accepting those things at face value. If you accuse me of dishonesty, then I expect some quotes of mine along with evidence that I have provided showing that I knew those quoted passages to be in error. Otherwise your accusation has no merit and I will point it out.

There is a difference between being honestly wrong and being dishonest. I can accept that you can be honestly wrong about things I believe are true. Why are you incapable of doing the same in my case?

#178 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 29 November 2012 - 03:20 PM

This is a logical argument. I only have to show that your assumptions are faulty (ie...you don't know the limitations of a timeless immaterial existence). If the assumptions are faulty, the conclusions are faulty. It doesn't eliminate the existence of God, if He does indeed exist, but it does show that you cannot logically show that He exists. I have seen this argument used by creationists. They say that since we cannot know how fast radioactive decay occurred in the past, we cannot know the age of the Earth's rocks based on the amount of decay products in the rock.


Umm no, if you want to go against what we see in reality as what occurs with mindless things, then YOU need evidence to do so. Otherwise its not a "logical argument" its you positing something entirely hypothetical and then claiming it debunks an intelligent cause.... (Gee I wish my imaginary creations could do that!)

Additionally where is your "science" for such a thing... At least I have been basing my claims on what we already know, all you can do is state nuh uh and then posit your hypothetical cause and call it superior...

#179 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 29 November 2012 - 03:56 PM

1. Why is the only option creation? Couldn't our space-and-time existence have been change into its current form from something else?


2. This whole spaceless timeless existence lends itself to all sorts of possibilities because we don't really have a clue what the physics of a spaceless timeless existence could possibly be.

3. Your frustration not withstanding, you have not actually refuted what I am saying, from my point of view.

4. You have not shown that antecedent conditions are necessary for a timeless spaceless existence.

5. Until you show that, you cannot say that a mindless thing cannot induce a change that causes the "creation" of our space-and-time existence.

6. Repeating yourself is not explaining your point. If I didn't understand before, I am not going to understand later.

7. Why can't one of the "parameters" of the mindless timeless spaceless thing be to change constantly and one of those changes "creates" space-and-time existences?

8. Since we cannot quantify the limitations in a spaceless timeless existence, we cannot logically eliminate this possibility.

9. That "debunk" requires that the spaceless timeless existence follows the physics of our space-and-time existence. Neither you nor Mr. Craig have established that and I don't see how you can. Because we don't know the physics of the spaceless timeless existence we cannot know that the universe even needed the something else to "start".

10. That's assuming "start" has any meaning in the timeless spaceless existence.

11. Why is a timeless immaterial mindless thing limited to "creating" a timeless immaterial universe while an timeless immaterial thing is not limited to "creating" a timeless immaterial universe.

12. You are an intelligent thing. Can you creating something that is outside of your time-and-space existence?

13. Mr Craig's

14. argument depends on the idea that for a mindless thing to cause a change, an antecedent action must have occurred to the mindless thing. However, the timeless immaterial existence may not be limited in such a way.

15. Logically, we cannot perceive of a timeless immaterial existence much beyond the use of those two words.

16. What does it truly mean to exist timelessly? What does it look like or feel like? Is there motion in an immaterial existence? How does motion occur if there is no time in which it can occur and not material for it to occur in? We don't have any logical answer to those questions.

17. How, then, can Mr. Craig claim that a timeless immaterial existence has causality limitations?


1. As I stated before, we already dealt with this right at the start of the thread... Yet again you are asking questions that have already been debunked. Do you really want to look like an idiot on a public forum? Because that is what I assume people will see here, when they read the thread and see your replies asking the same question after its been replied to...

2. And? I'm focusing on the MINDLESS aspect since that is the issue and the sole difference between God and your hypothetical imaginary cause.

3. Yes I know, because your point of view is 'nuh uh I am right you are wrong because I said so, na na na"

4. YET AGAIN THE PENNY FAILS TO DROP!

I have been saying throughout this entire flipping thread that A MINDLESS CAUSE limits itself with anticedent conditions, since it is mindless and thus can only operate within its parameters, (those being timelessness and spacesslessness) ergo A MINDLESS CAUSE cannot create something temporal, within time or space since that would defy its anticedent conditions, which it cannot do BECAUSE IT IS MINDLESS! A MINDLESS CAUSE WOULDN'T KNOW OF ANYOTHER WAY!

5. Umm no I do not need to demonstrate what you claim in point four because it stems from your own confusion and your inability to READ and comprehend my posts. I have covered this over 5 times now, how many more till it sinks in, (I suggest you read point 4 above 20 times)

6. Perhaps you just don't want to understand, that is the only thing I can think of... ergo denial... However I'd ask why respond if you believe you'd never understand it?

7. Already covered this! Firstly you have no logcial foundation for such a claim. Secondly you are adding more assumptions therefore via occams razor the intelligent cause is more logical, since you're adding unnecessary assumptions into the mix, (solely to avoid an intelligent cause).

8. As I have said over and over and over and over WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING THE LIMITATIONS OF A TIMELESS AND SPACELESS CAUSE! WE ARE DISCUSSING THE LIMITATIONS OF IT BEING MINDLESS. THAT IS WHERE THESE LIMITATIONS STEM FROM!

9. Umm no, debunking the infinite past claim comes from the fact that a past of infinite events is a logical absurdity. It means that there is literally no begining... Additionally SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE CLAIMS THERE WAS A BEGINING IN THE FINITE PAST, BB and the paper that demonstrated that in any universe in a state of expansion there will alwasy be a start point, which debunks the infinite past claim... This was all covered in the first half of the thread, essentially your claim here demonstrates that you either ignored the evidence given to you, didn't understand it or just couldn't be bothered reading it...

10. Umm the start is for the universe which is of time and space, you're just demonstrating your confusion here.... However its also indirectly getting my point... For a timeless spaceless cause, how can it comprehend a starting point for the universe, this is why an intelligent cause is needed so it can CHOOSE to create a universe in time and space.

11. As I have tried to show you through out the last 5 pages or so, because one is MINDLESS and the other is not. Seriously if you couldn't grasp at least that then I truely pity you.

12. I am not God... ergo omni-potent.....

13. Professor Craig. Thank you very much, its very childish and immature to try and take a jab at someone by ignoring that person's qualifications. (Great demonstration of "atheist-morals" here).

14. And I have asked you for your evidence for such which you refused to do... Which means you really are going 'nuh uh, I'm right because I say so'

15. And? That has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am saying that being MINDLESS is the problem, and MINDLESSNESS is something we can observed all the time in reality, which means your "argument" falls on its face, since you refuse to address to issue I am talking about. You'd rather confuse it by discussing timelessness and spacelessness, which have nothing to do with how MINDLESSNESS imposes anticedent conditions.

16. See point 15, you're only demonstrating your attempt at a red herring or your own confusion since they are not the issue.

17. Professor Craig... He never stated that he said a MINDLESS cause would impose anticedent conditions.. Again you need to stop with the red herrings and focus on the actual issue.

I have to ask, why are you here? You have no intention of honest debate or discussion, you simply ignore the points given to you and make yourself look like a complete fool? Is that what you want?
  • Calypsis4 and goldliger like this

#180 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:51 PM

The reason I keep repeating my argument is because you never address it. You simply repeat what you and Mr. Craig wrote. Your argument requires the first cause to be or be in a state of eternal timless spaceless existence. You then proceed to put the limitations of our space-and-time existence on the timeless spaceless existence but provide no logical reason for doing so. Any statement made afterward that depends on those limitations being in place for the timeless spaceless existence, are based on an unproven assumption and are therefore not a valid conclusion. Additionally, you require a mindless thing to follow those limitations but not an intelligent thing despite the fact that intelligent things in our space-and-time existence are required to follow those limitations. Those are my objections to your argument. You can address them or repeat what you have said a number of times before. Your choice.



...Ludicrous.

The burden of proof is on you now, Jonas. We've addressed your objections time and again. Parroting that this isn't the case, and that we've not shown the logic (while simultaneously failing to address our explanations) is merely an arbitrary assertion on your part. I'm afraid at this point I'm going to have to agree that you're not being intellectually honest.

So it's your turn to substantiate your objections:

//Any statement made afterward that depends on those limitations being in place for the timeless spaceless existence, are based on an unproven assumption and are therefore not a valid conclusion.//

How do you propose that changes and effects could occur in a mindless scenario without the existence of a prior state? We've provided logical reasons as to why a prior state must exist, and you've not addressed our explanations. So your objection fails.

In a deductive syllogism, if the premises hold true, then the conclusion is not merely an assumption. Rather, it's considered logical *proof*. In the case of mindless causation, here's a syllogistic representation of the argument:

1. In order for event "x" to occur, a prior state must exist (an antecedent).
2. If a prior state did not exist, then no mechanism would exist to cause x.
3. Therefore, timelessness does negate the necessity of past states of existence.

Now, you could continue to lazily parrot that the premises are only assumptions. However, that doesn't hold water unless you are able to provided a *reason* as to *why* the premises aren't true. You've *completely* failed to knock down our premises, and this is precisely why your objection fails.

//Additionally, you require a mindless thing to follow those limitations but not an intelligent thing despite the fact that intelligent things in our space-and-time existence are required to follow those limitations.//

You're repeating your false analogy. And you're doing it with the full knowledge that we've already addressed this. Human beings, and an eternal supernatural being, are clearly not the same. So it's completely nonsensical to compare the two. Therefore, your objection once again fails.

One thing is becoming crystal clear, here. Jonas doesn't believe, because he has absolutely zero desire to believe. It's not that the evidence hasn't been shown. It's that he rejects it outright with hand waving and denial. Very sad.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users