Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 30 of 30 FirstFirst ... 20 26 27 28 29 30
Results 581 to 585 of 585
  1. #581
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    762
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Who says I'm not?
    You do:
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    they are not the totality of the argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your state of acceptance, while interesting, isn't particluarly germane to the discussion.
    It's not my state of acceptance. It's a fact that we have no way of actually confirming or achieving a reasonable certainty about anything that happened prior to the Planck time, so by definition any claims regarding what happened before are entirely speculative & without empirical evidence to support them conclusively. Bottom line: KCA has roundly failed to convince any reputable physicists of the existence of god. If KCA were proof of god in any way, someone would've already collected a Nobel prize for it. As it stands, it's just another gap-god argument that theists bring up when their irrational beliefs are questioned, as you have done here. All you're doing is scouring the available theories, models, and papers, for even the smallest piece of wording which you can try to twist into tenuous (and worse, non-exclusive) support for your beliefs, disregarding entire adjacent positions of those same physicists which contradict your beliefs.

  2. #582
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    735
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    I'm not sure this is exactly on topic for what generated this section of the conversation, but I'd point out that they weren't killed by evolution. They were killed by a giant asteroid that interfered with evolution.
    I think it relates.
    However, I said nothing like "evolution killed" anything. Evolution is not a thing and has no causative powers. It is a description/observation of changes in life on earth over time. Form a really subjective human point of view, the asteroid interfered with dinosaurs evolution. Perhaps we can make a bit more objective point of view:

    Let us say earth is visited by an extremely advanced (by human standards) aliens that wanted to learn about earth. I doubt they would conclude that the asteroid "interfered with earth's evolution". A more likely scenario is they would conclude it was part of the evolution of life on earth.

    ---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    But 97% isn't missing. 50 percent or so hasn't been observed through EM radiation. That doesn't mean it is missing. It doesn't mean we can't talk about general physical rules and principles, right? That would be a naked argument from ignorance fallacy. The fact that there is dark matter and dark energy is hardly a valid reason for saying there wasn't a big bang, or that time isn't a linear, iterative process.
    Well the 97%'ish mark has been used commonly for a while, but even at 50% it still means there is a fair amount of physics missing. The BB is quite popular these days to be sure.

    One thing that always bothered me about it is:
    I get the universe expanding currently so it would be contracting if we reversed time. What bothers me is everything getting to that one point all at the same time.
    IOW, the moon is currently moving away from earth every year. reverse time and there must be a time they were one. Now sure, they may have been, but an extraordinary event would have happened that just watching their orbits could not explain.

    ---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    But I'm not sure why it is an oddity. I think it would only be odd if we assume that livable space is the major concern God has. I don't think we can make that assumption. Rather, given that conflicting set of priorities that God has for us (relationship, development, freedom, etc) I'm not sure why this universe would be out of step with that.

    We think the universe (manifold thingy) is nearly 14 billion yrs old based on what we can see. Is the any reason to think we can see the "edge" of our manifold thingy? It actually seems it goes on for farther than we can "see" and space still continues to expand...

    At a VERY distant time in the future our own galaxy is all that will be visible from our galaxy. A new life on another planet at that time could only conclude there never were any other galaxies and hence the BB would never have happened! They would never be able to "see" the universe (manifold thingy) expand so these theories would not make sense.

    I find it very possible (likely) that there is information form our universes past that is currently not available to us.

    ---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    I'm not trying to convince you that it is probable with that argument, just that it is possible. To return to the detective analogy, I'm only trying to argue that He should be on the suspect list. The rest is on the shoulders of the main arguments (CA, FT, etc).
    Very good, cause it wouldn't.
    It is possible that the human definition of unicorns is wrong and there is only one and it created all that we see.

    I again agree you point is possible, but what you are actually saying is no, you can't show God (or anything) living eternally is likely....

    Aside (we tried this once) but how is existing eternally not an infinite by definition?

    ---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    I'm not sure I quite agree with this sentence. Human definitions matter more than just convention between people in as much as they represent something objectively true or false. See all the language issues in the threads on transgender topics here for good examples of that. So to the extent that the word we are using represents something real, there isn't a reason for us to artificially attach constraints on the concept without good reason.
    Human's have a grasp of the "objectively true/false"? I suppose in some cases, but it is not a given without some support sir.

    ---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    1) Nothing in the CA would suggest that it one way or the other. I would rely on Occam's Razor here and say that the pantheon explanation is more complicated without any defended reason why it is necessary.
    Given that, I see no reason to conclude one God is more likely to create a universe than a collaboration.

    ---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    2) Yes, this is a deductive requirement of the CA. The cause must be atemporal for two reasons. One, it creates temporal dimensions, it would be incoherent for it to be within its own creation. Two, if it is temporal, we run into the same problem of counting actual infinites in order to have a finite universe.
    That only means it is unaffected by our universe' time, not that it is eternal.
    Because the cause of our universe (manifold thingy) must exist prior to creation in no way shows that same cause must continue to exist after creation nor until the end of the universe' (manifold thingy) existence.

    ---------- Post added at 06:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    3) The CA doesn't address this issue directly in a manner I can think of, but I would again invoke Occam's Razor to ask why we would think it went out of existence? We do have a different argument, the argument from contingency though that suggests that this could not have been the case. Given that the CA reveals the contingent nature of the universe (as opposed to necessary nature), the removal of the sustaining cause would be hard to square with the continued existence of the universe. To use an example. A scale is unbalanced if I put my finger on it. IE the unbalanced nature is contingent on my action. If I leave or stop existing, the unbalanced nature goes away.
    Because again, we have no reason to think it is likely that anything exists eternally.

    Are you suggesting the universe (manifold thingy) would cease to exist specifically because the creator ceased to exist?

    ---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    4) The CA doesn't address this issue specifically that I can think of. This relies (from a possibility point of view) on the fact that life doesn't seem to require temporal limitations for any reason I can see. It is perfectly coherent and plausible to have something be alive absent a temporal limitation. Now, whether that is what is real in actuality, that goes back to the argument itself. That it is probable is based on the fact that the argument is valid. And that the premises are more likely true than not. Things that begin to exist need an explanation of why they came into existence. All mainstream cosmology points to the universe beginning to exist. So given that it is hard to argue that it isn't probable that the universe had a cause. And we know by deductive requirements that that cause had to be aphysical (since it must exist by definition outside our physical dimensions), atemporal (ditto), powerful (since it causes the creation of a spacetime manifold), and intentful (since it creates dimensions that it does not, itself, exist in).
    This is a looong way around, to say:

    no the KCA does not support anything can exist eternally.

    ---------- Post added at 06:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    Microorganisms aren't created in our image. Nor are they able to communicate. The comparison breaks down in just those areas that God would expect to interact with us. Nor does "companionship" really meet the Judeo-Christian (especially not the Christian given the Trinity) conception of God's purpose. Our ability to form a relationship is evident, despite our differences. So is our ability to do good. For that matter so is our ability to do a thousand things that God could have intended for us to do. The fact that we are not co-equal companions isn't particularly relevant to that fact either in God's plan or ours.
    How can we be created in God's image if He is immaterial?

    Fellowship is probably a better term I suppose. Whatever term you wan to use, the idea is:
    God wants a relationship with humans yet how could we meaningfully communicate/interact/socialize/whatever?

  3. #583
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,509
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You do:
    And why do you conflate the CA not being the totality of the argument with me not attempting to explain the argument?

    You wouldn't say that I wasn't attempting to explain general relativity if I began by showing how gravity worked.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    It's not my state of acceptance.
    But it is. You said, "I'll also point out that KCA has by no means been accepted as sound." That refers to whether you've accepted the argument or not. It has nothing to do with presenting a rational argument towards its validity or strength.

    Until you can offer either a challenge to a premise or a question of validity, this is solely a statement about your psychological acceptance of the argument. And that, while interesting, isn't particularly germane.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Evolution is not a thing and has no causative powers. It is a description/observation of changes in life on earth over time.
    That isn't quite right, evolution is a description of why and how those changes happen. The distinction matters because the Theory of Evolution (in its various forms) does detail the causitive and explanatory powers that result in speciation.

    Let's say those alients did visit us and chose to phrase it in that manner (though there would be no objective reason for them to do so, just a different subjective approach). So what? They would definitely agree with us that the dinosaurs were, in fact, wiped out, which is what matters. I'm not sure why a "well they could have not been wiped out" argument undermines anything I've said. Especially since it is self-defeating. If the conclusion is that only natrualistic/materialistic processes govern the universe it isn't actually true that the dinosaurs could have possibly not been wiped out. It is 100% certain that they would be wiped out because the universe is deterministic.

    They hypothetical fails, imo, because it neither addresses an underlying premise of the argument and is self-conflicting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Well the 97%'ish mark has been used commonly for a while, but even at 50% it still means there is a fair amount of physics missing. The BB is quite popular these days to be sure.
    I wouldn't infer that being unable to detect 50% of matter and energy means that we are missing 50% of physics. It means we haven't detected it. Just like it took us a long time to detect the Higgs Boson. Before we detected it, it isn't as if the standard model was missing details, it just needed some additional verification. Ditto here. The absence of that detection says virtually nothing about the state of physics and likely more about the state of our technology. Now, we could detect some kind of bizarre matter that makes us need to relook at physics, but that doesn't mean we are currently missing anything.

    A better way to think of it is that we have been unable to detect through one particular scanning technique all the matter that we know is there based on our knowledge of physics and our other detection tools. To apply an analogy; let's say I were to show you a room with two quarters in it. I then blindfold you and ask you to find them. Using one hand after 5 minutes you only find one of the quarters. That doesn't mean that your understanding of the room is at 50%, it only means you haven't been able to find the other quarter with this particular search technique.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    One thing that always bothered me about it is:
    I get the universe expanding currently so it would be contracting if we reversed time. What bothers me is everything getting to that one point all at the same time.
    IOW, the moon is currently moving away from earth every year. reverse time and there must be a time they were one. Now sure, they may have been, but an extraordinary event would have happened that just watching their orbits could not explain
    Interestingly, that is exactly one of the reasons we started thinking that was how the moon was formed. The orbit indicated that at one point the moon was part of the Earth until a large body the size of Mars impacted it. The remaining material created the moon. That hypothesis led to predictions that were validated by Apollo astronauts through geological connection.

    The issue of the universe collapsing to a single point at the same moment you describe is really good (not blowing sunshine here), I don't think many people would have realized that was a problem. The problem is resolved via relativity though. Once we realize that there isn't a center point they are all racing too, it gets easier to see them all arriving at the same point, because the point is defined as where they all get to at t=0.

    This is probably less intuitive, but remember, it isn't just matter and energy flying out into existing dimensions or empty space. The BB is literally the expansion of those dimensions out as well. So as we roll back the clock as it were, the dimensions are collapsing as well. Think of it like deflating the balloon. The balloon doesn't collapse at perfect rates, some parts of the rubber collapse more quickly than others. But because they are all connected , they all reach the deflation point (singularity).

    I fear I haven't given a great explanation, let me know if that makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    We think the universe (manifold thingy) is nearly 14 billion yrs old based on what we can see. Is the any reason to think we can see the "edge" of our manifold thingy? It actually seems it goes on for farther than we can "see" and space still continues to expand...
    Just to be clear, we can only see what happens in our physical dimensional set (currently), which is what is commonly called a universe, so anything that happens outside of it in the manifold of causally connected dimensions isn't currently observable.

    Confining us to this set of physical dimensions: to continue the balloon analogy, that is (more or less) what our universe looks like, with us living on the surface of the balloon. We know this because we can actually see back to the big bang. You can as well. Remember turning on your TV without a channel and getting static, or having a radio between stations? That static is actually radiation from the Big Bang you are hearing. We ussed that static through the WMAP survey to map the shape and size of this universe. Mapping that radiation showed us the shape of the universe.

    If you imagine living on the surface of the balloon, you might not be able to see the far side because of the horizon problem. But, you can measure the size of the universe based on the curve of the balloon. Just like the Greeks first measured the size of the Earth. If you also know, roughly, how much that curve is changing, you can map out how old that balloon is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I again agree you point is possible, but what you are actually saying is no, you can't show God (or anything) living eternally is likely....
    That isn't what I said however. I said that by showing it is logically coherent I'm not arguing that it is probable. Rather, I'm arguing it is probable based on the other arguments (CA, FTA, etc). The point of showing it was logically coherent was to show why an objection based on something being alive eternally wasn't valid.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Aside (we tried this once) but how is existing eternally not an infinite by definition?
    We did. And if I remember correctly, I asked you what dimension it was infinite across? IE, by what metric are you measuring it being infinite? Surely it isn't time since it isn't temporal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Human's have a grasp of the "objectively true/false"?
    I didn't imply that we 100% grasped all objective truths obviously. But I'm sure you agree that we use language to convey more than just feelings. We use language to describe and communicate a world around us that exists, as it is, whether we believe it to be that way or not, right? In that case language is more than just human convention. We can't, or at least shouldn't, artificially change the definition of a word without showing why the current definition doesn't adequately cover the objective concept being discussed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Given that, I see no reason to conclude one God is more likely to create a universe than a collaboration.
    Ok, accept that the latter position would be irrational. We have warrant to argue for a creating force via the CA. There is no warrant in the CA for additional entities that assisted in the creation. Thus holding them as equally likely is appealing to evidence not presented, ie irrational.

    To apply a common similar set of reasoning. We know that someone shot President Kennedy. We have evidence of a shooter via the bullet wounds. Absent additional evidence we certainly wouldn't argue that multiple shooters were just as likely, right? We would want additional evidence, ballistics, video, something, to expand the ring of assassins.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    That only means it is unaffected by our universe' time, not that it is eternal.
    Not exactly. It requires that the cause be atemporal, ie absent time as a dimensional set. That was the point of the second part of that response. Two, if it is temporal, we run into the same problem of counting actual infinites in order to have a finite universe. If God were simply in His own time then we couldn't have a temporally finite universe because God would have already created the universe infinitely long ago. That was the problem with invoking an actual infinity here. Moving it back a step doesn't resovle that conflict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Because again, we have no reason to think it is likely that anything exists eternally.
    But we do given the CA, you're begging the question a bit. In order for it to "go out of existence" it would need first to have existed. So we are presupposing the existence of this cause (but not irrationally because it is mandated by the conclusion of the CA), if the state of that cause were to change (Ie go from existing to not existing) that state change would require its own cause. So what is that cause? What makes it go from existing to not existing?

    We can't simply apply what we think is likely to be the case as a cause. Our beliefs have no causitive powers here. It would be like thinking it incredibly unlikely that there was an oasis over the next hill, then finding one. The oasis wouldn't dry up just because we don't think it is likely that it is there. It would dry up for other reasons maybe, but not because of our belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    no the KCA does not support anything can exist eternally.
    That isn't what my response said in the slightest. I would encourage you to re-read it, specifically the section that says:

    Now, whether that is what is real in actuality, that goes back to the argument itself. That it is probable is based on the fact that the argument is valid. And that the premises are more likely true than not. Things that begin to exist need an explanation of why they came into existence. All mainstream cosmology points to the universe beginning to exist. So given that it is hard to argue that it isn't probable that the universe had a cause. And we know by deductive requirements that that cause had to be aphysical (since it must exist by definition outside our physical dimensions), atemporal (ditto), powerful (since it causes the creation of a spacetime manifold), and intentful (since it creates dimensions that it does not, itself, exist in).

    That is a long way of saying, if the CA is logically sound (which it pretty clearly is) and the premises are more likely true than not (and there doesn't seem to be a good coherent rejection of any one of them currently standing in thread) then it is more probable than not that something exists eternally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    How can we be created in God's image if He is immaterial?
    Why would that be referring to physical image? Especially in the context of the verse making it explicit that God isn't a material being? Rather, generally it is held by Christians and Jews (and I think the remainder of the chapter's description of what Humans are to do makes it clear) that this is about our ability to have rational thought and that we have spirit as God is spirit as Cassuto puts it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Fellowship is probably a better term I suppose. Whatever term you wan to use, the idea is:
    God wants a relationship with humans yet how could we meaningfully communicate/interact/socialize/whatever?
    I have a meaningful relationship with my daughter, even though she is only two. That relationship will grow as her capacity grows of course, which is part of what is good about it. But I wouldn't call it not meaningful because her capacity is limited when compared to mine.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #584
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    762
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And why do you conflate the CA not being the totality of the argument with me not attempting to explain the argument? You wouldn't say that I wasn't attempting to explain general relativity if I began by showing how gravity worked.
    You asked "who says" you aren't presenting arguments for your Xtian theism, and I replied by pointing out that you do. You then repeated your attempt to justify not presenting arguments for your Xtian theism. Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but whether you think it's okay to not present any arguments supporting your Xtian theistic beliefs doesn't change the fact that you have not presented any arguments supporting them. They therefore remain without rational justification.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But it is. You said, "I'll also point out that KCA has by no means been accepted as sound." That refers to whether you've accepted the argument or not. It has nothing to do with presenting a rational argument towards its validity or strength. Until you can offer either a challenge to a premise or a question of validity, this is solely a statement about your psychological acceptance of the argument. And that, while interesting, isn't particularly germane.
    I've explained why KCA is not sound. Your refusal to accept that is irrelevant, and it remains a fact that we have no way of confirming anything about what happened prior to the Planck time. Any claims regarding it are entirely speculative, and any premises regarding it are not demonstrable.

  5. #585
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    735
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That isn't quite right, evolution is a description of why and how those changes happen. The distinction matters because the Theory of Evolution (in its various forms) does detail the causitive and explanatory powers that result in speciation.
    Evolution has no causative powers.
    It is humans way of explaining all life on earth has a common ancestor.

    ---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let's say those alients did visit us and chose to phrase it in that manner (though there would be no objective reason for them to do so, just a different subjective approach). So what? They would definitely agree with us that the dinosaurs were, in fact, wiped out, which is what matters.
    1. Of course it would still be the aliens subjective reasoning! I said it would be more objective than a human.
    2. We weren't discussing if the dinosaurs domination of earth (since many still live with us, they technically weren't "wiped out") ended, we were discussing the evolution of life on earth and you said:
    "They were killed by a giant asteroid that interfered with evolution."

    I disagreed and said the asteroid was "part of the evolution of life on earth".

    3. Agreed, it does matter how you phrase it, cause somehow you respond to points I am not making....

    ---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Especially since it is self-defeating. If the conclusion is that only natrualistic/materialistic processes govern the universe it isn't actually true that the dinosaurs could have possibly not been wiped out. It is 100% certain that they would be wiped out because the universe is deterministic.

    They hypothetical fails, imo, because it neither addresses an underlying premise of the argument and is self-conflicting.
    Indeed, you agree it is a cause and affect universe (manifold thingy), so if you want to be able to roll the universe back to a big bang you will have to agree moving it forward again dinosaurs will again be devastated by an asteroid!
    So yes, the asteroid didn't just appear out of nothing did it. You are not suggesting God made it appear and on a collision course with earth on purpose are you?

    ---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I wouldn't infer that being unable to detect 50% of matter and energy means that we are missing 50% of physics.
    And I of course said no such thing. I said:
    "but even at 50% it still means there is a fair amount of physics missing."

    And there is. Have you heard of the proposed new particle collider
    "https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-lay-out-plans-for-a-new-supercollider/"

    Given that it is rather expensive and enormous I would say CERN agrees with me there is much more physics out there than we currently understand.

    ---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Interestingly, that is exactly one of the reasons we started thinking that was how the moon was formed. The orbit indicated that at one point the moon was part of the Earth until a large body the size of Mars impacted it. The remaining material created the moon. That hypothesis led to predictions that were validated by Apollo astronauts through geological connection.
    Yes, and we are currently having issues with what was happening at the BB.
    Again, if all we knew was the orbits were currently getting farther apart, then the used to be closer till they touched.
    In the case of earth/moon, we have enough physics to make pretty good predictions what might have happened. At the BB, not as much.

    ---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The issue of the universe collapsing to a single point at the same moment you describe is really good (not blowing sunshine here), I don't think many people would have realized that was a problem. The problem is resolved via relativity though. Once we realize that there isn't a center point they are all racing too, it gets easier to see them all arriving at the same point, because the point is defined as where they all get to at t=0.
    (thank you for the encouragement

    This sounds like "God is all/pure/the definition of good" because we define him that way. Because we define it that way must reality conform?

    ---------- Post added at 05:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I didn't imply that we 100% grasped all objective truths obviously. But I'm sure you agree that we use language to convey more than just feelings. We use language to describe and communicate a world around us that exists, as it is, whether we believe it to be that way or not, right? In that case language is more than just human convention. We can't, or at least shouldn't, artificially change the definition of a word without showing why the current definition doesn't adequately cover the objective concept being discussed.
    I just meant just because people "define something (X)", does not necessarily make the definition correct.

    ---------- Post added at 05:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, accept that the latter position would be irrational.
    Show it is so and I will...

    ---------- Post added at 05:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We have warrant to argue for a creating force via the CA. There is no warrant in the CA for additional entities that assisted in the creation. Thus holding them as equally likely is appealing to evidence not presented, ie irrational.
    If I grant the CA has warrant for "creation by intelligence" in no way whatsoever shows it MUST be a single life form/intelligence/God/term of choice that was the creator. Given the complexity of the subject matter, it seems more likely a single "life form" would struggle more than a collaboration at the task.
    Oh, unless we just define the creator as capable, then end of issue...



    ---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not exactly. It requires that the cause be atemporal, ie absent time as a dimensional set. That was the point of the second part of that response.
    It requires to be unaffected by our time or I missed your proof.

    ---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why would that be referring to physical image?
    Because that is all we have evidence for and "image" means what you can see. To speak of seeing that which is unable to be seen is nonsensical...

    ---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I have a meaningful relationship with my daughter, even though she is only two. That relationship will grow as her capacity grows of course, which is part of what is good about it. But I wouldn't call it not meaningful because her capacity is limited when compared to mine.
    Push...
    Not a good analogy. You may think that God looks at us like a child, but the difference between us and God is immeasurable.
    Humans looking at an ant farm is far removed from the human/God relationship.

    Orders of magnitude aren't going to do justice to this difference. It is more vast than the universe (manifold thingy) itself...

    ---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If God were simply in His own time then we couldn't have a temporally finite universe because God would have already created the universe infinitely long ago.
    We would still have to exist at some point would we not?

    I God existed infinitely/eternally and created many universe' (manifold thingy's) there would still be a time when all these life forms actually lived, right?

    I don't believe it true, but all lives on an infinite time line still get to live right? Otherwise they were never alive professor. your objection fails.

    ---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not exactly. It requires that the cause be atemporal, ie absent time as a dimensional set.
    I still don't think you have supported a life form can be said to exist or act absent a temporal component.
    Please define time, as I am sure we are not on the same page.
    Again, feel free to be as technical as you like but also give a synapses that normal people can understand...

 

 
Page 30 of 30 FirstFirst ... 20 26 27 28 29 30

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophy: Does a necessary beng exist, and is it consistent with the theistic God?
    By cstamford in forum Member Articles & Essays
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 15th, 2015, 06:02 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 25th, 2015, 09:37 AM
  3. The Theistic Definition Thread
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2007, 02:13 PM
  4. Theistic Evolution????
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: April 13th, 2006, 06:53 AM
  5. Theistic Death
    By Iluvatar in forum Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2005, 08:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •