Jump to content


Photo

In Search Of Logic And Evidences For God


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

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 December 2011 - 06:47 AM


What are you talking about Jay???



Just kidding, I don't know how that happened. But its fixed now.

I didn't see the just kidding and I was thinking "well I guess it was just a weird forum glitch...you got me


:)

#22 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 16 December 2011 - 10:44 AM

The “First Principles” are undeniable (or can be reduced to the undeniable).


Indeed I have to accept first principles.

Relativist assertion – There is no such thing as truth!
Theist’s rebuttal – Is that statement TRUE?


Your killing me here.

A more succinct way of stating it would be, if something exists and if nothing cannot cause something, then it follows that something must exist necessarily. Because if something did not necessarily exist, then nothing would have caused the something that does exist. Since it is impossible for nothing to cause something, then it is necessary for something to always have been.


you sound like me. Are you "preaching" to the choir?

Since nonbeing cannot produce being (premise 5), only being can produce being.


Yup you have just preached to the choir.
Ok I'm sorry but I have no arguement that detracts from this posting. I have come to this understanding via logic and reason. So, where does this leave us at this point.
Well I still have to answer your next post and so far I agree with all the logic you have brought buuut, so far the tie to the hebrew God is still not specifically determined. I know there is a cause of life that did not originate on earth. So how do we infer a specific tie to the hebrew God? what evidences or logics based on the biblical texts provide an undeniable tie? remember it is written that evidence of him is contained within the his past actions which would include the texts themselves and the organizations of matter he asserts to have caused. So I would say that maybe we can look within these areas and possibly find what the assertion points to? Some people infer that simply the organization itself is the proof but I say organization alone does not specify a who and the texts have inferred that a determination of who is possible so I'm going to take him at his word and look for it.

#23 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 December 2011 - 04:08 PM

Indeed I have to accept first principles.

You rarely find a logician who doesn’t. Unless they have something to hide (or hide from).


Your killing me here.

It never ceases to amaze me how the relative mind attempts to swallow the camel of a lie, in order to keep for accepting a gnat of truth.
J



you sound like me. Are you "preaching" to the choir?

You asked for logical evidences. And I love a good choir!



Yup you have just preached to the choir.



Then sing it… As long as you keep it together.

Ok I'm sorry but I have no arguement that detracts from this posting. I have come to this understanding via logic and reason. So, where does this leave us at this point.
Well I still have to answer your next post and so far I agree with all the logic you have brought buuut, so far the tie to the hebrew God is still not specifically determined.



First – This argument alone doesn’t necessarily have to point directly to the “Hebrew God”, as it is another part of a cumulative case, and any specificity can be garnered from the case as a whole. As we put the lines of logical, historical and scientific evidences together, it is not hard at all to come to the conclusion that the Hebrew God is who He said He is.

Second – One doesn’t normally only respond to only one or two premises unless they are attempting to make a case against those lines specifically. So it was a little disheartening when you didn’t attempt to argue against any of the premises, and you didn’t make any comments on the premises individually… But I got over it. ;)

Third – You didn’t actually answer any of the lines (premises) of the first post yet (First Principles argument) unless you are saying that you agree with it in its entirety (as I believe you did, and this is merely a rhetorical device); and if that’s the case, than I concur wholeheartedly, and we can move on. :)

I know there is a cause of life that did not originate on earth.



I can just as easily ask “How can we not?” except for the fact that (as I explained earlier, that it is a cumulative case.

So how do we infer a specific tie to the hebrew God? what evidences or logics based on the biblical texts provide an undeniable tie?



I can say “Due to the impossibility of the opposite”, but I normally don’t use the Transcendental Argument so early in the conversation.


remember it is written that evidence of him is contained within the his past actions which would include the texts themselves and the organizations of matter he asserts to have caused.



It is not only the historical written evidences, but the contemporary evidences as well.

So I would say that maybe we can look within these areas and possibly find what the assertion points to?



And we will…

Some people infer that simply the organization itself is the proof but I say organization alone does not specify a who and the texts have inferred that a determination of who is possible so I'm going to take him at his word and look for it.



I agree! You cannot even prove a fellow named Ron is making conversation within posts to you right now. I may be a thirteen year old girl from Canada, or a ninety-three year old Chinese man. Without further evidences, you really have no idea who I am, or that I can do what I say I can do.

But as we go further on, we can travel down the road of evidences to their logical, rational, historical and scientific conclusion.

#24 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 16 December 2011 - 05:30 PM

Now, for one of my favorite Logical arguments: The Kalam cosmological argument.
The syllogistic format of the argument is:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.


Theres a logic booboo here. #2 overlooks the possibility that in some form the building blocks of the universe could have existed forever but at some point they were rearranged giving the appearance of being freshly made or having a beginning. However, #3 is not harmed much since it would be about the same whether it applied to a newly existing universe or a newly arranged universe. The obvious problem would be the conveyed view. As it reads now the assumption is that if we can show a beginning then it is considered not only the origination of the arrangement but the origination of the building blocks as well. A good way to think about this is recycling.

The traditional atheistic counter had previously been to point at premise 2, by taking the illogical position that the universe has always existed (steady state etc…). With the advent of the preponderance of the empirical scientific evidence pointing directly to a specific BEGINNING to our universe (some call it the Big Bang), thus rendering this line of defense obsolete and outdated due to said evidence.


Ha... I called out #2 prior to reading the above paragraph. I would say the difference is that my position could not be inferred as illogical since an intelligent designer can choose when to act. So the building blocks of the universe could have always existed but could be rearranged as the intelligent agents wills it. here would be such an example of such a sudden change;

Revelation 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together...
Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;

Sounds like recycling to me. Thus we could have an eternal cause with an eternal material to work with.

Since God has no beginning, the question becomes meaningless.


It should be noted that I have already posited an eternal cause. So this is not a convincing concept. the true question is who is the eternal cause and how do you know it?

Now, I defer to Dr. William Lane Craig. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.


garranteed

"2. The universe began to exist."

Assumption, with no evidence as I showed at the beginning. One must define what the universe is? is it matter and matters arrangement or simply its arrangement.

"2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite."

If you have an intelligent designer rearranging matter / the design of the universe to suit his will then there can exit new
arrangements from eternally exiting building blocks / matter Thus the addition of temporal arrangements of eternal building blocks.

"3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence."

Therefore, a specific "arrangement" of the universes matter would have a cause and not the matter its formed from.
As I noted Ron i'm in complete agreement with a first cause existing. The applications of logic as applied in the arguements you brought is kinda flawed because of the inference that both the design and the material to form the design must be considered as comming into existence. There is nothing but an interpretation so far that infers a beginning of matter itself. I also made another post in another thread dealing with this very subject of interpretation of Genesis one and the assumption of the the de novo creation of matter.

Here is a little bit of logic in defence of my particular POV... read the following biblical text and see if you notice the odd
point that is made;

John
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Did you notice it? read 1:3 again carefully....
Do you see how it specifically noted "that was made"? Why state this if everything in existence was made? If everything that existed was made then 1:3 would have logically read;

1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made.

By including the last 3 words it makes a distinction between things designed and things that have always existed or were "not made".

Here are 2 bits of logic based on biblical texts for you to think about. If God created de novo why create matter and then form it into specific designs? why not simply make it in its final form? Why does it take 6 days for him to form everything? why not simply make it all, at once? would it make a big difference in your belief if he had done things that way?

Now why did it take God a whole day to make light? doesn't this seem counter intuitive? suppose however that instead of a de novo creation of matter he was instead infusing what is called dark matter (building blocks of matter) with energy. Suppose that when we read that "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" that he was in fact infusing dark matter (eternally existing waters) with energy and arranging the newly energized constituents of matter into the various elements in preparation of forming them into more complex designs in the following days.

Just a few thoughts to peak your interest. Here is something I think you will like;
Did God Create Everything? http://llerrah.com/d...eeverything.htm

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 December 2011 - 06:34 PM

Theres a logic booboo here. #2 overlooks the possibility that in some form the building blocks of the universe could have existed forever but at some point they were rearranged giving the appearance of being freshly made or having a beginning.





That is a non sequitur as Premise 2 clearly states “The universe began to exist”; which gives you at least three problems with your attempted rebuttal:



First – Building blocks MAKE UP the universe, building blocks ARE NOT the “universe”. Therefore, the universe didn’t exist UNTIL the building blocks were arranged into the universe.



Second – You are assuming that the “building blocks” COLD HAVE existed forever (which is unscientific, as you are making the assumption ‘a priori’), yet you have no evidence (logical, rational, historical or scientific) to support such an assertion. Further, the assertion is illogical; as the building blocks are “Contingent” and therefore HAD to be ‘created’ by that which is “Necessary” (see premises in my first posting again; the one that you agreed to as being “logical”). This ultimately renders the “building blocks” as finite.



Third – Neither proposition negates God (nor an “initial causer”), and in fact they infer a “Re-arranger”, and therefore support the God model promulgated by the syllogism!

Conclusion: Your point is moot, as it has absolutely NO affect on premise 2.




However, #3 is not harmed much since it would be about the same whether it applied to a newly existing universe or a newly arranged universe.



Actually, since you had absolutely NO rebuttal to #2, #3 absolutely follows from One AND Two. And the second half of your statement is moot (as provided above).



The obvious problem would be the conveyed view. As it reads now the assumption is that if we can show a beginning then it is considered not only the origination of the arrangement but the origination of the building blocks as well. A good way to think about this is recycling.




Once again, regardless of your “recycling” hypothesis, none of it negates God (or an Initial Causer), and, in fact it begs for the “Necessary Being” because the “Necessary Being” had to “cause” it to begin with, let alone “recycle it” (or cause it to be recycled). Further, as I provided above, your attempted rebuttal falls apart, as I showed.





Ha... I called out #2 prior to reading the above paragraph. I would say the difference is that my position could not be inferred as illogical since an intelligent designer can choose when to act. So the building blocks of the universe could have always existed but could be rearranged as the intelligent agents wills it. here would be such an example of such a sudden change;





As I provided, your assertion fell apart via the very logic you agreed to in my first post. You’re on a slippery slope, and sliding quickly…



Revelation 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together...
Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;

Sounds like recycling to me. Thus we could have an eternal cause with an eternal material to work with.

It should be noted that I have already posited an eternal cause. So this is not a convincing concept. the true question is who is the eternal cause and how do you know it?





The above falls under the study of eschatology, which means that it has not happed yet, as it is ‘future’ tense. Further, it neither negates God (the “Initial Causer” or “Necessary Being”), because it requires God (the “Initial Causer” or “Necessary Being”). Also, you cannot have an “eternal cause”, but you can have an “Eternal Causer” (see the logic you agreed as logical in my first post).



"2. The universe began to exist."

Assumption, with no evidence as I showed at the beginning. One must define what the universe is? is it matter and matters arrangement or simply its arrangement.





Once again, the building blocks ARE NOT the end item. You really shouldn’t be prevaricating on definitions like this. You can have all the ‘building blocks’ for man, but until they are arranged correctly, you still have not created man. Therefore, man has not yet had a ‘beginning’. Further, the caused thing (i.e. building blocks, man etc…) logically were caused by the “initial Necessary Being”. Therefore, as I pointed out earlier, your point is moot.



"2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite."

If you have an intelligent designer rearranging matter / the design of the universe to suit his will then there can exit new
arrangements from eternally exiting building blocks / matter Thus the addition of temporal arrangements of eternal building blocks.



Again, as I pointed out previously, you fail at rebuttal because the matter is not eternal/infinite; thusly rendering your hypothesis moot.



I was going to continue with your post, refuting it point-by-point, but my very fist words in this post refuted your entire hypothesis, as you simply continued with the same fallacy throughout your entire post (i.e. you built your entire foundation on sand, and not on the solid, logical rock of truth).

#26 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 16 December 2011 - 09:59 PM

If the Hebrew God is the designer then how could I not be intellectually satisfied? Who would search for less than what would cause satisfaction?

I think you can be. The Hebrew God was initially revealed to us by who? Moses, who wrote the Pentateuch, or Torah-- the first five books. So the question is--did Moses go up Mount Sinai and receive the Law, and was the tabernacle inspired by Yah-Weh, etc? Because this alleged event(s) are of supernatural nature, this is exactly why I point to testimony of CURRENT supernatural and empirical occurrences, which are also according to the pattern of scripture. My REASON tells me if God takes 5 warts off my hand in 6 months (which caused me undue emotional disturbance), simply because I put Mark 11:24 into practice, or I know people who were healed, or delivered, saw a very timely answer to prayer,then I can also believe that Moses actually did ascend Mount Sinai, and heard the voice of God!

You say you want logic, but I have seen the Word work in my life. Are you saying that's not evidence?



I will also direct you the 2 verses noted above. The assertion is made that there are evidences and it doesn't say that faith is required first. Don't take this as a belittlement of your testament. It is not. It may be that you simply have not needed to see this evidence to believe so you may as yet not actually see them for what they are.

I give you the point. Faith is based on evidence, but saving faith is based on a direct revelation (i.e. contact) of the Spirit. You say you know the scripture. Then surely you have read how much the scripture talks about the Holy Spirit. If you have been in contact with him, then what other evidence do you need?

I was fortunate enough that as a child, I sensed the Spirit of God during the preaching of the Word. I went forward, instinctively knowing that if I would take a "step of faith" God would meet me. I did not yet know the principles of Peter stepping on water to go to Christ. But the story of Peter is indeed an illustration of saving faith. Total trust in a sure and merciful Savior.

#27 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 16 December 2011 - 11:24 PM

"Theres a logic booboo here. #2 overlooks the possibility that in some form the building blocks of the universe could have existed forever but at some point they were rearranged giving the appearance of being freshly made or having a beginning. However, #3 is not harmed much since it would be about the same whether it applied to a newly existing universe or a newly arranged universe. The obvious problem would be the conveyed view. As it reads now the assumption is that if we can show a beginning then it is considered not only the origination of the arrangement but the origination of the building blocks as well. A good way to think about this is recycling."

KBCID, I got 2 different interpretations from your paragraph. Are you denying the validity of premise 2 or do you have a different interpretation of the implications of premise 2?

#28 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 17 December 2011 - 06:14 AM

"Theres a logic booboo here. #2 overlooks the possibility that in some form the building blocks of the universe could have existed forever but at some point they were rearranged giving the appearance of being freshly made or having a beginning. However, #3 is not harmed much since it would be about the same whether it applied to a newly existing universe or a newly arranged universe. The obvious problem would be the conveyed view. As it reads now the assumption is that if we can show a beginning then it is considered not only the origination of the arrangement but the origination of the building blocks as well. A good way to think about this is recycling."

KBCID, I got 2 different interpretations from your paragraph. Are you denying the validity of premise 2 or do you have a different interpretation of the implications of premise 2?


The 3 points that were brought originally were in opposition to the steady state universe concept where matter was inferred to be eternal and its organization was in a constant state of being reorganized. Premise 2 is a blanket encompassing both the origin of matter itself and its subsequent organization. this is where we come to the logic flaw. since one could be new such as organization and the other could be false since the matter used to form the design could have always existed. consider the aluminum can. How many times has a current aluminum can been in the form of a can and then been melted down to form another structure brand new?
One cannot assert that the universe is new as a blanket statement without defining what is meant by its newness. Is it new in material, new in structural organization or both?

#29 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 December 2011 - 07:10 AM




"Theres a logic booboo here. #2 overlooks the possibility that in some form the building blocks of the universe could have existed forever but at some point they were rearranged giving the appearance of being freshly made or having a beginning. However, #3 is not harmed much since it would be about the same whether it applied to a newly existing universe or a newly arranged universe. The obvious problem would be the conveyed view. As it reads now the assumption is that if we can show a beginning then it is considered not only the origination of the arrangement but the origination of the building blocks as well. A good way to think about this is recycling."

KBCID, I got 2 different interpretations from your paragraph. Are you denying the validity of premise 2 or do you have a different interpretation of the implications of premise 2?



The 3 points that were brought originally were in opposition to the steady state universe concept where matter was inferred to be eternal and its organization was in a constant state of being reorganized.

Premise 2 is a blanket encompassing both the origin of matter itself and its subsequent organization. this is where we come to the logic flaw. since one could be new such as organization and the other could be false since the matter used to form the design could have always existed. consider the aluminum can. How many times has a current aluminum can been in the form of a can and then been melted down to form another structure brand new?
One cannot assert that the universe is new as a blanket statement without defining what is meant by its newness. Is it new in material, new in structural organization or both?



Again, the flaw in your original analogy is exposed in your retelling of it in your above reply.

First – Regardless of how many times the aluminum can may or may not have been recycled, it still had an origin date, AND it still had an ORIGONATOR! So, logically, you can attempt to add as many “recycling’s” as you wish, but you are just attempting to run from the “origins” fact and causing a “infinite regress” morass for yourself; which is a blatant misuse of the “Law of Parsimony”.

Second – The items used to make up the can, weren’t a can, so they in no way affect the origin date of the first can, or the subsequent recyclings of said can. Further BOTH the can AND the materials that make up the can are contingent! Therefore BOTH had a beginning, and BOTH require a “BEGINNER”, “INITIAL CAUSER”, or “Contingent Being” (as you agreed to as “LOGICAL” in our earlier conversation).

Third – One can indeed assert “with a blanket statement” the definition of a NEW Universe with the undeniable following syllogism, because it is logically undeniable AND has not been affected at all by your attempted rebuttal:


1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.


#30 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 17 December 2011 - 07:38 AM

That is a non sequitur as Premise 2 clearly states “The universe began to exist”; which gives you at least three problems with your attempted rebuttal:
First – Building blocks MAKE UP the universe, building blocks ARE NOT the “universe”. Therefore, the universe didn’t exist UNTIL the building blocks were arranged into the universe.


Actually if we go by the accepted definition of what the universe is then my point is correct.

universe
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
http://www.thefreedi...ry.com/universe

All matter is included whether it is in the form of stars or planets or just gas floating around. The term universe is a blanket term for everything including matter itself. You yourself pointed to that as part of the concept when you posted this in a prior posting;

With the advent of the preponderance of the empirical scientific evidence pointing directly to a specific BEGINNING to our universe (some call it the Big Bang)


The big bang posits the origin of matter itself. It says that there was no space or time or matter for that matter prior to a specific beginning and this is not just my POV;

Origins of the Universe
Big bang proponents suggest that some 10 billion to 20 billion years ago, a massive blast allowed all the universe's known matter and energy—even space and time themselves—to spring from some ancient and unknown type of energy.
http://science.natio...iverse-article/

The Big Bang: Origin of the Universe
Before the universe as we now know it existed, there was no space or time. The Big Bang and its associated theories try to explain or describe the moment of change from nothingness and no time to the existence of the universe filled with space and marked by time. http://www.infopleas...a/A0004428.html

I would also like to point out that the notion of space itself or the empty distance that matter floats in now is also included within the blanket term universe. The big bang theory says that "space" has a beginning "time" has a beginning and "matter" has a beginning. So I am well within logical bounds to question how one can state in a blanket format that everything had a beginning just from the current observable evidence.

Second – You are assuming that the “building blocks” COULD HAVE existed forever (which is unscientific, as you are making the assumption ‘a priori’), yet you have no evidence (logical, rational, historical or scientific) to support such an assertion. Further, the assertion is illogical; as the building blocks are “Contingent” and therefore HAD to be ‘created’ by that which is “Necessary” (see premises in my first posting again; the one that you agreed to as being “logical”). This ultimately renders the “building blocks” as finite.


I am not asserting that the building blocks did exist forever. If you carefully look over what I am saying I am questioning how anyone can state in blanket format that everything we observe had a beginning, time, space, matter.
Neither I nor anyone else I know can state that everything observable had a beginning nor can they state that it has always existed. To take a stand on either side is to take a position beyond the evidence which would require belief. Big bang theory asserts without evidence that space itself along with matter had a beginning and that theory is based on what? the fact that everything appears to be flying in an outward direction from some as yet undefined point in space.
The only facts I can state is that there are 3 possibilities;
1: matter, space, time could have always existed or
2: they could all have had a beginning or
3: Some of these could have had a beginning and some may have always existed
The only unscientific statement is the one that asserts the universe had a beginning. My position here is to ask how would anyone know this is true for each item based on observation?

Third – Neither proposition negates God (nor an “initial causer”), and in fact they infer a “Re-arranger”, and therefore support the God model promulgated by the syllogism!


I have not attempted to infer that any of the proposition negate an uncaused cause. I is continuously asserted by me that an uncaused cause must by logic and reason exist. Supporting a God model or concept is transitory as knowing there is a cause does not specifically point to a type of cause or the extent of power it may possess. The specific question you need to answer is how does the fact that an uncaused cause must exist imply that that cause specifically is the hebrew God?

I was going to continue with your post, refuting it point-by-point, but my very first words in this post refuted your entire hypothesis, as you simply continued with the same fallacy throughout your entire post (i.e. you built your entire foundation on sand, and not on the solid, logical rock of truth).


I have answered to the begining points of your post and since you determined that this part was sufficient to undermine any of my other points then there is no sense in also doing a point by point until the begining is settled on.
What you need to show is how the blanket statement universe which is understood as being composed of space (distance/ volume) and matter and time can by observable evidences be inferred to have a beginning. My post was a challenge to the blanket inclusion of all three of the components and the inference that all three had a beginning.
In order to overcome my questioning of this point you would need to have evidences that can show how all the components must have had a beginning otherwise, one cannot logically apply such a blanket statement as universe to the inference of having a beginning.
You also need to understand that I am not asserting that anything other than a first cause always existed. My position is to ask how we know that only a first cause always existed. My looking at the biblical texts and noting the various actions that were taken and playing devils advocate for the pre existence of matter is not an assertion of fact. I am merely saying that the information could possibly be interpreted that way in order to show that the current assumptions both by big bang enthusiasts and biblical believers may both be in error. interpretation has historically bitten the interpreter in the butt many times so how do we logically avoid these pitfalls?

Lets do a small fact finding here with interpretation. Look at Genesis 1:1;

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Now tell me, is what we read here the actions that occurred in Gods first act or is it more like the heading of the chapter stating what is to be decribed in detail within the body of the text that follows it?
Most people "believe" via their interpretation that this verse is where God created space and matter. Is this what you interpret this verse to mean? If you don't interpret it as the origin of space and matter then that would mean that genesis 1:2;

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Is a description of what was already in existence when God began his creation of the design for the earth and the other forms we observe in the universe today. Thus, if this logic is true then the big bang theory is not an acceptable inference of truth for the biblical account.

#31 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 17 December 2011 - 08:27 AM

Again, the flaw in your original analogy is exposed in your retelling of it in your above reply.
First – Regardless of how many times the aluminum can may or may not have been recycled, it still had an origin date, AND it still had an ORIGONATOR!


Actually the design / organization of the can has an origin date. and as always there will be the existence of the cause for it.

So, logically, you can attempt to add as many “recycling’s” as you wish, but you are just attempting to run from the “origins” fact and causing a “infinite regress” morass for yourself; which is a blatant misuse of the “Law of Parsimony”.


I am not attempting to add recycling's, my position remains that the assertion that matter itself was one of the created things is not a logical determinant from the observable evidence nor is it an absolutely implied point in the biblical text as that condition is contingent on the interpretation.
I don't quite understand why you keep asserting that i am running from the origins fact. Haven't I stated multiple times that an uncaused cause must logically exist? I can't run from my own assertion. The only thing I am trying to do is see what logic or evidences specifically tie the fact of an uncaused cause to the hebrew God asserted by the bible as the cause.

Further BOTH the can AND the materials that make up the can are contingent! Therefore BOTH had a beginning, and BOTH require a “BEGINNER”, “INITIAL CAUSER”, or “Contingent Being” (as you agreed to as “LOGICAL” in our earlier conversation).


Actually the fact that the materials and the form of the "can" are contingent does not logically mean that both had a beginning.
I am a creator and I can create a can buut, I did not create the materials that I may make a can with. This is empirical observable evidence that the origination of one is not applicable to the origination of the other. However, the design of the can is 'dependant' on the materials used for the design existing prior to its construction.

Third – One can indeed assert “with a blanket statement” the definition of a NEW Universe with the undeniable following syllogism, because it is logically undeniable AND has not been affected at all by your attempted rebuttal:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.


I disagree with #2 alone based on the lack of evidence to back the blanket statement used. However, one might reword #2 in this fashion to make it more applicable and less suceptible to logic flaw.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The specific organization of the universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

when stated in this manner such flaws in logic are avoided by blanket statements. Now there is no overstepping of what the observable evidence shows. We can be confidant that the statements convey only what is logically obtainable by existing evidences.
Any question as to whether space existed prior to the organization of the universe is avoided. Any question of whether matter existed prior to it current organization is also avoided.
So we should both agree with the logic that there exists an uncaused cause. This cause initiated the specific organization of matter into specific designs. This uncaused cause is intelligent.
Beyond this point I need to gain further input for the determination of who. What observable evidence or rational in logic leads to the hebrew God as that cause which we both agree has to exist and we both agree is the intelligent designer.

#32 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 17 December 2011 - 08:49 AM

It never ceases to amaze me how the relative mind attempts to swallow the camel of a lie, in order to keep for accepting a gnat of truth.


my observations exactly

You asked for logical evidences. And I love a good choir!
Then sing it… As long as you keep it together.


ummm the wife has asked that I shut my pie hole. apparently music is a weak point.

First – This argument alone doesn’t necessarily have to point directly to the “Hebrew God”, as it is another part of a cumulative case, and any specificity can be garnered from the case as a whole. As we put the lines of logical, historical and scientific evidences together, it is not hard at all to come to the conclusion that the Hebrew God is who He said He is.


the conclusion of the geocentric model was also garnered from all the evidences possessed by the observers of that time and they were still wrong.

Second – One doesn’t normally only respond to only one or two premises unless they are attempting to make a case against those lines specifically. So it was a little disheartening when you didn’t attempt to argue against any of the premises, and you didn’t make any comments on the premises individually… But I got over it.
Third – You didn’t actually answer any of the lines (premises) of the first post yet (First Principles argument) unless you are saying that you agree with it in its entirety (as I believe you did, and this is merely a rhetorical device); and if that’s the case, than I concur wholeheartedly, and we can move on.


How should one reply to something they agree with? You can automatically infer that if I don't argue against a point then I am in agreement with it. So we are moving on ;)

I agree! You cannot even prove a fellow named Ron is making conversation within posts to you right now. I may be a thirteen year old girl from Canada, or a ninety-three year old Chinese man. Without further evidences, you really have no idea who I am, or that I can do what I say I can do. But as we go further on, we can travel down the road of evidences to their logical, rational, historical and scientific conclusion.


The only thing I can state from the evidence is that an intelligent agent whose identity is unproven is in fact communicating with me. Now how would you propose we could determine by logic or evidences that the unproven identity of the provable agent is in fact Ron and not Jane or Joe or Lisa or any of a billion other such intelligent agents? Remember there are a multitude of names given from various histrical documents for who is believed to be the intelligent designer.

#33 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 December 2011 - 08:54 AM

Actually the fact that the materials and the form of the "can" are contingent does not logically mean that both had a beginning.



Okay, think very carefully before you answer this question, because I am going to hold you accountable for your previous words concerning logic. AND, we are very stringent with the rules here when it comes to prevarication, time wasting, misrepresentation, equivocation and intellectually honest conversation at this forum. The forum rules are located at: http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm

My question is this: Are you attempting to say that something that is contingent can be, or is infinite (i.e. without beginning)?


#34 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 December 2011 - 10:17 AM

KBC id,

You started a thread at this forum that you thought would give us a hard time because you figure we cannot meet your criteria for the thread.. And when people here do just that you suddenly find yourself in a situation where you realize that you made a mistake. The creationists at the forum are not a push over where you can just post the usual atheist questions and laugh while you watch us squirm. Most of us are seasoned veterans at debating, and have the knowledge to counter your tactics.

The problem you complain about here is a problem you caused.

Also from this thread it is more than apparent to me that you are not agnostic you are an atheist. An agnostic would listen to what we had to say on the subject you brought up, not fight it with every fiber in his being as you have done here. Showing this shows you have made up your mind about God And was using the agnostic worldview to gain some sort of advantage in debating here.

Your tactic in doing this is not new, we have had several over the years do this and this is the reason I have become pretty good at spotting this, I have had a lot of practice. So that you can no longer fool people with false world view, I am changing it to atheist. At least this way your form of debate will now match your world view. Attempts to change this will only result in a ban.

#35 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 17 December 2011 - 11:03 AM

My question is this: Are you attempting to say that something that is contingent can be, or is infinite (i.e. without beginning)?


Not at all. Nothing that is contingent can ever be considered infinite.
Not quite sure how you got that from my post but I hope this clarifies my position. An uncaused cause is not contingent on anything for its existence.

#36 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 17 December 2011 - 12:34 PM

KBC id, You started a thread at this forum that you thought would give us a hard time because you figure we cannot meet your criteria for the thread..



I was asked to start this topic in miscellaneous by Ron. I am not coming in with the idea that there can be no answer to it. My hope is that there may be something I have overlooked that will provide an answer to a longstanding question for me.


And when people here do just that you suddenly find yourself in a situation where you realize that you made a mistake. The creationists at the forum are not a push over where you can just post the usual atheist questions and laugh while you watch us squirm.



I am currently not aware of a mistake. I especially don't wish to push atheistic views or their tactics. I was born with a conceince. I don't revel in harming others or being hateful and I definitely don't want anyone else to feel like they are any less than my equal or better


Most of us are seasoned veterans at debating, and have the knowledge to counter your tactics.



I actually don't have any specific 'tactic' I'm in search of the truth where ever it may be found and I have been as honest and forthright as I can possibly be. I'm agnostic and an ID proponent. This means I know there is an inteligent cause for everything. I simply don't know what that something is so I'm researching the possibilities.


The problem you complain about here is a problem you caused.



I'm not aware of a complaint.


Also from this thread it is more than apparent to me that you are not agnostic you are an atheist. An agnostic would listen to what we had to say on the subject you brought up, not fight it with every fiber in his being as you have done here. Showing this shows you have made up your mind about God And was using the agnostic worldview to gain some sort of advantage in debating here.



An agnostic neither hold a belief in or disbelief of God. I am listening and discussing the various points of the beliefs held by others which I would think is a normal type of discourse between one who doesn't hold a belief and those who do. My mind is definitely not made up in this area which is why i'm looking into this possibility further.
What would I possibly gain from having an advantage in a debate? would I win the debate? When I came in I asked that others not be offended if I don't simply believe and I have also asked that we as friends look at things together as something of importance might arise that will make a difference. I have not pretended to be anything other than myself.


Your tactic in doing this is not new, we have had several over the years do this and this is the reason I have become pretty good at spotting this, I have had a lot of practice. So that you can no longer fool people with false world view, I am changing it to atheist. At least this way your form of debate will now match your world view. Attempts to change this will only result in a ban.


You guys may be professionals in the debate thing but I am not. I have attempted to discuss things with others in various forms over the years but not as a professional debater. My last time online was in the carm forums under the name Mecheng but the evolutionists there are just rediculously hateful. My life is too full to waste time trying to simply be a winner of arguements. A review of all my postings on this site should show where I stand and what I agree or disagree with. Simply disagreeing with others should not mean that I am an atheist trying to denigrate non atheists. My parents and my wife would be a bit put off as well if I were that type of person since they are all YEC's. I love my wife and she has the right to believe as she wishes and I don't try to diswade her from her belief. My rational on the subject is that ultimately what harm can it do for her or anyone for that matter to believe in the God of the bible. What gain is there to be had by trying to convince anyone not to believe.

I will try something I normally would never do in an online forum. After I post this I will pm you some of my personal info and if you want to talk to me directly the line of communication will be open to you. I can't think of much more I do to make you believe I am who I state I am.
If this is not sufficient then I can try and find another nonatheist site where my motives are not constantly in question.

#37 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 December 2011 - 04:51 PM




My question is this: Are you attempting to say that something that is contingent can be, or is infinite (i.e. without beginning)?



Not at all. Nothing that is contingent can ever be considered infinite.
Not quite sure how you got that from my post but I hope this clarifies my position.




I could point to a number of your posts where you don’t just infer it, but you come right out and say it. But I’ll just stick with the one below for now:

So the building blocks of the universe could have always existed but could be rearranged as the intelligent agents wills it.



No, the “building blocks of the universe” could NOT “have always existed”, as the “building blocks of the universe” are created, and therefore “contingent”. It is less than honest to pretend that it is a possibility, especially when you agree to the logic of my first post.



An uncaused cause is not contingent on anything for its existence.



Indeed, but contingent phenomena (i.e. the universe, the Earth, life in general, man in particular) REQUIRES an “Initial Causer”, “Necessary Being”, God (etc..). You cannot have it both ways.

#38 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 December 2011 - 05:02 PM




KBC id, You started a thread at this forum that you thought would give us a hard time because you figure we cannot meet your criteria for the thread..

I was asked to start this topic in miscellaneous by Ron. I am not coming in with the idea that there can be no answer to it.



No, I never asked you to start the topic, I responded to some questions you had posted, and suggested that if you wanted answers to said questions, to post your own thread (in the miscellaneous forum) so as to keep the other thread on topic. These were your assertions in the first place, and I merely gave you a better vehicle in which to posit them. I had a good idea where you were going to attempt to take the conversation, but I though it would be best to give you the chance.



My hope is that there may be something I have overlooked that will provide an answer to a longstanding question for me.


I have quite a bit that I can say about the above comment, but I think it best to allow you the opportunity to correct your previous misunderstandings, or simply feed you enough rope. Basically, the choice is yours.

#39 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 17 December 2011 - 06:04 PM

I could point to a number of your posts where you don’t just infer it, but you come right out and say it. But I’ll just stick with the one below for now:
No, the “building blocks of the universe” could NOT “have always existed”, as the “building blocks of the universe” are created, and therefore “contingent”. It is less than honest to pretend that it is a possibility, especially when you agree to the logic of my first post.


So are you saying that I have to believe all things except God were created or I'm being dishonest? The "could have" scenario I posted was meant to explore the possibility of an error in interpretation. not an assertion of fact. There have many discussion about this point I will reference them;

Prof Van Wolde, 54, who will present a thesis on the subject at Radboud University in The Netherlands where she studies, said she had re-analysed the original Hebrew text and placed it in the context of the Bible as a whole, and in the context of other creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia.
She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb "bara", which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean "to create" but to "spatially separate".
http://www.telegraph...s-academic.html

Creation as ordering
The Bible does portray God as ordering his creation. This idea is especially clear in the image of a potter working his clay into an ordered structure (e.g. Isaiah 29:16; Jer 18:1–6). Although not directly associated with creating the world, this does reflect the character of God as bringing order to his creation.
Early church fathers such as Theophilus, Justin Martyr, and Origen actually believed that matter was pre-existent with God. Borrowed from platonic thought, these church fathers believed that God “ordered” this chaotic matter and gave it its shape and form, thus resulting in the creation of the world. As McGrath notes, “[m]atter was already present within the universe, and did not require to be created; it needed to be given a definite shape and structure” (McGrath, Theology, p. 38).
http://www.theopedia..._out_of_nothing

The mormon religion also teaches that God simply reformed matter already in existence and they base their teaching on their biblical understanding.

As an agnostic I sit on the sidelines and see these various arguements and I wish to understand how two peoples who believe in the same God of the bible can come to two different conclusion on the same matter.
So what makes it illogical for me to ask questions on the subject? If I didnt question everything then I would be just like an evolutionist believing everything their fed. I want to feel free to question how others come to a specific belief, I don't wish to be forced into a belief because a particular group says it must be or your dishonest.

Indeed, but contingent phenomena (i.e. the universe, the Earth, life in general, man in particular) REQUIRES an “Initial Causer”, “Necessary Being”, God (etc..). You cannot have it both ways.


Ron we have agreed on a number of points. We both absolutely agree there is a first cause for anything that came into existence. However, I also agreed with the logic that something can't come from nothing.

Since God is understood to be noncorporeal then why would it be illogical or dishonest to see if it is possible that the material used to make matter may also be eternal? This isn't an inference that such a substance could do anything on its own. It would more properly be understood that it would be a substance that has always existed which God uses to do his will. No detraction on the power of God whatsoever on my part. Just a simple observation of logic and trying to see if it may make more sense if by chance there is interpretive error.
All I can say for sure is there are at least 2 groups who profess a belief in the God of the bible and one is adamant that he simply reformed existing matter and the other says he made matter form nothing. If I choose one way or another I would still be wrong in someones eyes. But either way I am sure someone is wrong. I would like to choose wisely and my only chance to do so is by asking and evaluating.

#40 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 17 December 2011 - 06:16 PM

No, I never asked you to start the topic, I responded to some questions you had posted, and suggested that if you wanted answers to said questions, to post your own thread (in the miscellaneous forum) so as to keep the other thread on topic.


You said;

If you want to discuss these matters further, start a thread in the miscellaneous section, as it is the most likely area to discuss the combination of logical, philosophical, historical and scientific evidences for God.


To which I replied

"On my way to the miscellaneous section....."

Obviously I wanted to discuss these matters further so I went where you suggested... to discuss them further. Now we were discussing them further in the place where you thought would be best and I am asking the same questions here about the interpretation of genesis 1.
So Why is my questioning about interpretations such a huge deal? How does this interaction of minds end up with me being accused of dishonesty and being called an atheist?.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users