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 31 FirstFirst ... 20 26 27 28 29 30 31 LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 607
  1. #581
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    769
    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
    822
    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
    10,521
    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
    769
    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
    822
    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. That it may "detail them" notwithstanding.
    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 an asteroid will again devastate the dinosaurs!
    That asteroid didn't just appear out of nothing/no where 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. One person might be able to conceive the design of a particle accelerator, but unlikely the same person could build it or maintain it. 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 I guess...



    ---------- 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?

    If 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. This 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...
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 18th, 2019 at 05:47 PM.

  6. #586
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You asked "who says" you aren't presenting arguments for your Xtian theism, and I replied by pointing out that you do.
    I think this requires a relatively strained reading of the history here. You asked whether this particular section of my argument shows evidence of Christ. I said no, that it is part of a larger argument that shows evidence for Christ, but that it needed to be addressed before moving on to the latter section of the argument.

    You interpretted this as the latter section not existing. That is not a valid inference from this statement however. You wouldn't, for example, say there I'm not showing that Socrates is mortal if I first started off by defending that all men are mortal. The fact that you haven't gotten the entirety of the argument isn't good reason to think it isn't there (argument from ignorance).

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I've explained why KCA is not sound.
    Hmm, well you offered some objections to the Cosmological Argument, sure, but none of them were sustained. You seem to have abandoned them after post 552. Most of your objections that weren't unfamiliarity with physics involved misunderstanding basic definitions, which have been resolved. Currently, you've offered no sustained objection to either the validity of the CA or to any one of its premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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"
    1) Why would it be more objective than a human asking the question? It would appear to be exactly as subjective as a human asking the question. Just because they don't live here doesn't mean that their question isn't just as framed in their ideological and philosophical priors as ours.
    2a) This take though is incorrect. Evolution posits the change in species through random mutation to adapt to an environment. An asteroid involves large amounts of kinetic energy vaporizing biological matter. Two very different processes. Your definition would have evolution containing sub-disciplines like astro-physics and geology since asteroids and geological forces are part of evolution, rather than outside forces which the evolutionary process reacts to.
    2b) The original point was that if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out humans would never have taken over the planet as an objection to divine oversight. My point was that they were, in fact, wiped out. If they hadn't been, sure we (though of course we wouldn't exist) could object to their current presence as evidence that there is no plan by God for our existence. But since they aren't, we can't make that argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    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 an asteroid will again devastate the dinosaurs!
    Note the important condition I added to my statement. "If the conclusion is that only natrualistic/materialistic processes govern the universe..." I didn't say that I actually accept that conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    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.
    And no one is arguing that there isn't a large amount of understanding still to be gained about physics. The consistent point I've offered was that the areas you are pointing out, while interesting, aren't ones that affect the arguments. There is no real answer to the dark matter problem that affects the fundamental constants of the universe.

    As for the new collider, it is primarily about seeking out disconfirming evidence; not looking for gaps in current understanding. It is similar to the teaching example where you give the students three numbers (say 3,6,9). You say they can give you a set of any three numbers and you'll tell them if it matches the underlying rule or not. Something like 80-90% of them will only ask for sets that confirm their initial guess. Say 12,15,18 and 60, 63, 69, etc. Then they will tell you "multiples of three" and be wrong. Very rarely do students actually ask you a set that disconfirms their hypothesis. IE 3, 5, -4. I remember a physics teacher once telling me that you don't really validate a hypothesis until you can test both its positive and negative predictions. That what this collider is about. It is about negative predictions of the standard model that require really, really high energy to test. It isn't really about finding new quarks we think could be out there or new forces we didn't know about.

    This collider is more about finding massive particles. IE a dozen top quarks and strange quarks rather than two. That really isn't pushing fundamental physics or altering the standard model; which is why you see the push back talked about in the article. Rather, its gets to what I mentioned just above, the Standard Model argues that these more massive particles cannot exist for anything beyond fractions of an instant. Showing that they don't in fact exist for long is further support for it. This project is more about going from 99.99992% sure of the standard model to 99.9999994% sure. There are probably better investments for discovery (like the gravity wave detector or lunar telescope) that could help us understand some of the bizzare things we see in the universe like fast radio bursts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    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.
    Not really though. At least not in the in professional opinion of physicists. You'll have a hard time finding a physicist who says there was not BB. Or that t=0 doesn't represent a boundary condition. That things break down or become nonsensical at t=0.000000000000000000000000001s or so (or alteratively that evn asking what is happening at that point might be a nonsensical question) doesn't change that virtually every physicist would agree that a) there is a BB and b) that it represents a boundary condition; questioning how the strong foce and gravity unify are good questions, but they don't change those points, and those points are the relevant ones to this argument.

    I once heard Sean Carroll describe this as an atheism of the gaps argument when critiquing Lawrence Krauss. His point was that if we (atheists in his case)are going to call theists on god of the gaps argumens, they shouldn't also put forward similar constructions. That the criticism Christians got for that argument is just as valid. We make warrant evaluations on the evidence available, not on appeals to ignorance.

    [This paragraph comes across more harshly than I mean it to, I think I'll get another coffee. In the meantime, please be patient with me and know that I mean this only with respect].

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    (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?
    [Ok, with fresh coffee in hand]

    I think it is more a natural consequene of relativity. Though looking back on my wording I definitely see how you woud come to that conclusion, since that is, quite literally, what I wrote. :-)

    I think the salient point here is that in relativity there is no such thing as a "center" of the universe absent this kind of definition. There isn't really a background dimensional set that we can compare the universe too and see if it is collapsing to an external observer's definition of center.

    I was hoping the balloon analogy would work a bit better. The key takeaway from it was that the dimensions themselves are collapsing and they are connected so as there isn't really a chance for one part of the baloon to go spiraling out from the rest.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I just meant just because people "define something (X)", does not necessarily make the definition correct.
    Very true, and no argument here. I just want to be sure we aren't defining language as mere convention to the exclusion of their being objective facts and reality. A discussion that contrasts the difference between that reality and our definition is absolutely valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Show it is so and I will...
    Uggh, sorry bad grammar on my part. I meant to write, "except that the latter position..." I didn't mean it as a demand. The rest of that response was the reasoning for why it is irrational (IE accepting a position absent any argument or evidence).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    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.
    No, the argument doesn't show that it must be a single entity. However, there is also no warrant in the CA for any entites beyond the one being discussed. Nothing in the CA argues or suggests or lends suport to these additional entities, so if we are going to add them to our conclusion, we'll need additional evidence as to why.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    It requires to be unaffected by our time or I missed your proof.
    I"m not quite sure where that implication would come from. I think the only conclusion drawn was that the cause must be atemporal because it both cannot exist within dimensions it is creating and runs into an infinite regress problem. Nothing in there would necessarily imply that it cannot interact with a temporal dimension once created.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    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...
    That isn't all we have evidence for in the slightest. We have evidence that human beings have rationality, right? That isn't a physical image, for example. (I'm not saying that is the sum total of what is meant here, but simply dispelling the idea that all we have evidence for is physical appearance).

    What's more, it only means that in 2019 because we, frankly, suck at language. It doesn't even mean that in 2019 in more professional settings like law or computer science (a hard drive image, for example, is a clone of another hard drive) or in public relations. When your PR consultant tells you to be careful about your image he isn't saying your physical appearance, but your perception by the public. Take, for instance, the phrase "the image of the republican party is that it hates poor people." That clearly isn't referring to the physical characteristics of the party, the "party" doesn't have a phsycial body to be reviewed anyway. Rather, it is referencing its positions, perception, outcomes, beliefs, etc.

    The Hebrew is broader, but even the English use of the word contains the sense of likeness or representation (https://www.etymonline.com/word/image). It can be anything that represents the person in earlier uses and the idea of it being mental similarity or non-physical characteristics. The latin use of the word includes things like 'being of the same mind' or 'belonging to the same group' and that usage was and is still very prevelant in modern english.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Not a good analogy. You may think that God looks at us like a child, but the difference between us and God is immeasurable.
    Well it is certainly immeasurable because I can't imagine what metric we would use ;-)

    More to your point analoies aren't bad because of scale, they are bad because of scope. Because the comparison is more extreme is not a good reason to think it doesn't apply. Now, if there was some conditional change that applied, that would be a good reason. The analogy of a pet turtle to your child for example would cross the conditional boundary of sentience and so the analogy would break down. I'm not sure what conditional boundary you are proposing we are crossing.

    God is certainly ridiculously, unimaginably smarter, more powerful, etc than us, but how would that mean that we are of value at all for a relationship? That conclusion doesn't follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    We would still have to exist at some point would we not?

    If 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?
    No, and for all the problems and contradictions we talked about before that arise when you apply actual infinites. God would both have created infinite universes by now and never gotten to this point now (because counting to infinity is impossible). How many universes would God have created infinitely long ago? Infinite. It becomes incredibly nonsensical and contradictory if we apply this actual infinite idea here.

    What's more, there is no way we could have a finitely old universe (which we observe we do). This applies beyond God to any physical model of iterative universe creation. Since God would have already created infinite universes infinitely long ago, our universe would have to be infinitely old. Again, that is the problem with applying an infinity. There is no point along the infinite timeline where our universe is 100 or whatever years old. At all points along the "God timeline" there are an infinite number of prior moments meanng at any point our universe should be infinitely old.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    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...
    Sure. I define time as a dimension. Similar to width or height except that it has two additional properties. It is not bi-directional (time flows foward) and not all points have equivilant actualization. IE now exists in a sense that tomorrow does not. (This is also known as A-Theory time).

    As for the nature of being, we are taling about ontology here, which is a pretty broad and deep category. I would say that the most universal definition of being is something akin to "an entity that contains one or more than one property that are logically coherent (or possible)." To make that a bit plainer, a being is something that we can write a definition about by describing its properties (IE we can't say a being exists if there is no content to fit into the definition of that being) and which the properties (the stuff that makes up its definition) are possible.
    https://www.ontology.co/being.htm

    I don't see how God wouldn't fit that definition. God certainly has properties (powerful, intentful, etc) that are possible, and nothing in the definition above nor the definition of God seems to invoke time in the sense i've defined it. Thus there don't seem to be any contradictions between the definition of being and the definition of time, thus we can reject the idea that God (as defined) is logically impossible.

    This is definitely a subject that can quickly devove into a quagmire. I'm happy to pursue this approach further, but I'm sure it will be more productive if you give me an idea of why it seems incoherent to you.
    "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.


  7. #587
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    822
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) Why would it be more objective than a human asking the question? It would appear to be exactly as subjective as a human asking the question.
    The same reason why surgeons shouldn't operate on their own family and psychiatrists should not diagnose their own disorders.

    ---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2a) This take though is incorrect. Evolution posits the change in species through random mutation to adapt to an environment. An asteroid involves large amounts of kinetic energy vaporizing biological matter. Two very different processes.
    I would submit you are being a bit short sighted.

    Is an asteroid changing the environment different (save scale) than a volcano erupting or a tidal wave.

    The asteroid changed Earths environment. Those that adapted, survived and evolved into todays life (unless you are a young Earther).
    On that note, what are your feelings of Geology? Fact/fiction?

    ---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2b) The original point was that if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out humans would never have taken over the planet as an objection to divine oversight. My point was that they were, in fact, wiped out.
    So, you are saying it was God's will the asteroid came our way?
    This make the Adam/Eve story a push.
    By the way, did you answer back the last time these two people came up and I said there was no "first human, similar to there was no first chicken/egg".
    You responded with a link that didn't support your conclusion and I don't remember you responding to my last rebut on the subject (my apologies if you did)?

    ---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Note the important condition I added to my statement. "If the conclusion is that only natrualistic/materialistic processes govern the universe..." I didn't say that I actually accept that conclusion.
    Then you believe we can roll back time (in conception) to see the BB, but rolling it forward again, the asteroid in question may miss Earth because of some other "process"?

    ---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not really though. At least not in the in professional opinion of physicists.
    So we have the same level of confidence regarding the BB happening as how the moon originated??
    Support please...

    ---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I once heard Sean Carroll describe this as an atheism of the gaps argument when critiquing Lawrence Krauss. His point was that if we (atheists in his case)are going to call theists on god of the gaps argumens, they shouldn't also put forward similar constructions. That the criticism Christians got for that argument is just as valid. We make warrant evaluations on the evidence available, not on appeals to ignorance.

    [This paragraph comes across more harshly than I mean it to, I think I'll get another coffee. In the meantime, please be patient with me and know that I mean this only with respect].
    It didn't come off as harsh to me. Atheists need to hold themselves to the same (or higher) standards as theists.

    I have never seen atheism defended in an intellectually honest fashion, and few that can pass the mustard on the theism side (I'm giving you credit here, you are taking a good stab at it, though for this thread you are still incorrect so far, or at least we haven't gotten to the point of a particular religion being "most likely" correct {since I see deism as possible, just not a particular religion as true}).

    ---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think the salient point here is that in relativity there is no such thing as a "center" of the universe absent this kind of definition. There isn't really a background dimensional set that we can compare the universe too and see if it is collapsing to an external observer's definition of center.
    Yes. This is where I was going. "No center". We can "see" 15 billion yrs'ish. If we traveled to that distance, we might "see" another 15 billion yrs...

    ---------- Post added at 05:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I was hoping the balloon analogy would work a bit better. The key takeaway from it was that the dimensions themselves are collapsing and they are connected so as there isn't really a chance for one part of the baloon to go spiraling out from the rest.
    I think I understand what you mean here.

    ---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Uggh, sorry bad grammar on my part. I meant to write, "except that the latter position..." I didn't mean it as a demand. The rest of that response was the reasoning for why it is irrational (IE accepting a position absent any argument or evidence).
    I understand. You didn't convince me.

    ---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, the argument doesn't show that it must be a single entity. However, there is also no warrant in the CA for any entites beyond the one being discussed. Nothing in the CA argues or suggests or lends suport to these additional entities, so if we are going to add them to our conclusion, we'll need additional evidence as to why.
    Um Scooter, the KCA (as you admit/agree/don't disagree) doesn't speak to ANY number "entity/s" per se (save at least one).

    Show me warrant that there must be ONLY one!

    ---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I"m not quite sure where that implication would come from. I think the only conclusion drawn was that the cause must be atemporal because it both cannot exist within dimensions it is creating and runs into an infinite regress problem. Nothing in there would necessarily imply that it cannot interact with a temporal dimension once created.
    The "conclusion drawn" was the cause must not be affected by our time, not that it can not have a temporal component at all.
    Nor have you shown anything can be said to exist/act absent a temporal component to my satisfaction (unless it was months earlier in this thread and I forgot .
    Last edited by Squatch347; January 31st, 2019 at 07:01 AM. Reason: tag fix

  8. #588
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,414
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    How is existed forever not an infinity and also not implying time as a necessity? How can exist not explicitly involve time on some form/frame/level?
    You’re right, to exist implies some type of time factor. As far as the concept of "eternal," consider suspending the notion that God exists. That which exists can become non-existent. So technically speaking, we can’t really say God exists. Chew on this concept:

    God IS = existence
    Existence is = God

    Existence (God) never goes out of existence.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  9. #589
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    822
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Existence (God) never goes out of existence.
    Existence can not be "nothing" as nothing existing would be nonsensical. It could be a concept, but something would have to exist to engage the concept. So even in your quote, God still exists (even if He IS existence) so could not exist at some time frame.

    This is just really a point of the inadequacy of human language more than a metaphysical truth.

  10. #590
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,414
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Existence can not be "nothing"
    What/who claims existence is nothing?
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  11. #591
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    822
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What/who claims existence is nothing?
    Per you:

    "That which exists can become non-existent."
    "God IS = existence
    Existence is = God"

    Then God could cease to exist

  12. #592
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,414
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Per you:

    "That which exists can become non-existent."
    "God IS = existence
    Existence is = God"

    Then God could cease to exist
    A book exists. A car exists. A human person exists. All these physical things can bleep into the state of existence, take up form for a period of time and be. However, just as they can bleep into the state of existence and be observable within the state of existence for a period of time, they can all cease to exist. They can all be completely reduced to ashes and not exist as physical observations. When forms bleep out and cease to exist from the state of existence, we understand from spiritual texts that existence (Spirit/God) is continual, endless, eternal. So I agree with your statement: "How can exist not explicitly involve time on some form/frame/level?" To exist does fundmenally require some time frame -- but existence (Spirit) is continual.

    Definition of existence:
    ex·is·tence
    n.
    1. The fact or state of existing; being.
    2. The fact or state of continued being; life:

    The 13th Century philosopher, theologian Thomas Aquinas sums up this concept in: An Analysis of the Summa Theologica


    The P1. Whatever a thing has besides its essence must be caused by the constituent principles of that essence or by some exterior agent.

    P2. Consider a created thing. It is impossible for a created thing’s existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles because nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own existence if its existence is caused.

    C1. Therefore, a created thing has its existence different from its essence.

    P3. God is the first efficient cause.

    C2. As the first efficient cause, anything God has cannot be due to an exterior agent. C3. God’s essence is identical to his existence.

    Secondary Argument:
    P1. Existence is that which makes every form or nature actual. Existence is actuality as opposed to potentiality.

    P2. There is no potentiality in God; only actuality.

    P3. God is his essence.

    C1. Since God is actuality his essence is existence.

    An Analysis of the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  13. #593
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    822
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    When forms bleep out and cease to exist from the state of existence, we understand from spiritual texts that existence (Spirit/God) is continual, endless, eternal.
    Yes, spiritual text does often lean that way, but that doesn't mean it is automatically true.

    Also, this makes God an actual infinity and it seems unlikely an infinity can exist.

    I can show all kinds of religious text you would not agree with


    ---------- Post added at 11:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    1. The fact or state of existing; being.
    Theists claim God exists, per you then, He could cease to exist.

    I'm curious why God needs to be eternal to be the creator?

    ---------- Post added at 11:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The 13th Century philosopher, theologian Thomas Aquinas sums up this concept in: An Analysis of the Summa Theologica
    "Essence" needs to be defined here before I can comment.
    How do essence and existence differ? C1 says they can be the same?
    At the moment, I don't see P1 & P2 leading to C1.


    The secondary argument at P2 says there is no potentiality in God. Could God not create another universe if He so chose? That is potentiality or He couldn't act...

    ---------- Post added at 11:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is definitely a subject that can quickly devove into a quagmire. I'm happy to pursue this approach further, but I'm sure it will be more productive if you give me an idea of why it seems incoherent to you.
    I said "existing and acting absent time".

  14. #594
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    769
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think this requires a relatively strained reading of the history here. You asked whether this particular section of my argument shows evidence of Christ. I said no, that it is part of a larger argument that shows evidence for Christ, but that it needed to be addressed before moving on to the latter section of the argument.
    Again, the bottom line is that you are not presenting any arguments for your specific Xtian theistic beliefs. They therefore remain without the rational justification which you claim they have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Hmm, well you offered some objections to the Cosmological Argument, sure, but none of them were sustained. You seem to have abandoned them after post 552. Most of your objections that weren't unfamiliarity with physics involved misunderstanding basic definitions, which have been resolved. Currently, you've offered no sustained objection to either the validity of the CA or to any one of its premises.
    Again, I explained why KCA is unsound, specifically that the KCA premises have not been demonstrated as we have no way of confirming anything prior to the Planck time. There is also the issue of P1's fallacy of composition.

  15. #595
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,414
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Yes, spiritual text does often lean that way, but that doesn't mean it is automatically true.
    It's interesting to note that the world's religious sacred texts as different as they are, different cultures, different geographical locations, written and recorded thousands of years apart do share a few powerful common treads. One of which is God’s existence/oneness. Here are some examples in case you're interested..

    Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.
    1. Judaism and Christianity. Bible, Deuteronomy 6.4

    I am the Lord, and there is no other,
    besides me there is no God.
    2. Judaism and Christianity. Bible, Isaiah 45.5

    Say, He is God, the One!
    God, the eternally Besought of all!
    He neither begets nor was begotten.
    And there is none comparable unto Him.
    3. Islam. Qur'an 112

    He is the one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self within all beings, watching over all works, dwelling in all beings, the witness, the perceiver, the only one, free from qualities.
    4. Hinduism. Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.11

    He is the Sole Supreme Being; of eternal manifestation;
    Creator, Immanent Reality; Without Fear, Without Rancor;
    Timeless Form; Unincarnated; Self-existent;
    Realized by the grace of the Holy Preceptor.
    5. Sikhism. Adi Granth, Japuji, p. 1: The Mul Mantra

    The sage clasps the Primal Unity,
    Testing by it everything under heaven.
    6. Taoism. Tao Te Ching 22

    Absolute truth is indestructible. Being indestructible, it is eternal. Being eternal, it is self-existent. Being self-existent, it is infinite. Being infinite, it is vast and deep. Being vast and deep, it is transcendental and intelligent. It is because it is vast and deep that it contains all existence. It is because it is transcendental and intelligent that it embraces all existence. It is because it is infinite and eternal that it fulfills or perfects all existence. In vastness and depth it is like the Earth. In transcendental intelligence it is like Heaven. Infinite and eternal, it is the Infinite itself. Such being the nature of absolute truth, it manifests itself without being seen; it produces effects without motion; it accomplishes its ends without action.
    7. Confucianism. Doctrine of the Mean 26



    When appearances and names are put away and all discrimination ceases, that which remains is the true and essential nature of things and, as nothing can be predicated as to the nature of essence, is called the "Suchness" of Reality. This universal, undifferentiated, inscrutable Suchness is the only Reality, but it is variously characterized as Truth, Mind-essence, Transcendental Intelligence, Perfection of Wisdom, etc. This Dharma of the imagelessness of the Essence-nature of Ultimate Reality is the Dharma which has been proclaimed by all the Buddhas, and when all things are understood in full agreement with it, one is in possession of Perfect Knowledge.
    8. Buddhism. Lankavatara Sutra

    Tathagatas certainly do not come from anywhere, nor do they go anywhere. Because Suchness does not move, and the Tathagata is Suchness. Non-production does not come nor go, and the Tathagata is non-production. One cannot conceive of the coming or going of the reality-limit, and the Tathagata is the reality-limit. The same can be said of emptiness, of what exists in accordance with fact, of dispassion, of stopping, of the element of space. For the Tathagata is not outside these dharmas. The Suchness of these dharmas and the Suchness of all dharmas and the Suchness of the Tathagata are simply this one single Suchness. There is no division within Suchness. Just simply one single is this Suchness, not two, nor three.
    10. Hinduism. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.1


    There is only one God; all the "gods" are but His ministering angels who are His manifestations.
    11. Omoto Kyo. Michi-no-Shiori

    Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
    12. Christianity. Bible, 1 Corinthians 12.4-7

    God said to Israel, "Because you have seen me in many likenesses, there are not therefore many gods. But it is ever the same God: I am the Lord your God." Rabbi Levi said, "God appeared to them like a mirror, in which many faces can be reflected; a thousand people look at it; it looks at all of them." So when God spoke to the Israelites, each one thought that God spoke individually to him.
    13. Judaism. Midrash, Pesikta Kahana 109b-110a

    Just as light is diffused from a fire which is confined to one spot, so is this whole universe the diffused energy of the supreme Brahman. And as light shows a difference, greater or less, according to its nearness or distance from the fire, so is there a variation in the energy of the impersonal Brahman. Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are his chief energies. The deities are inferior to them; the yakshas, etc. to the deities; men, cattle, wild animals, birds, and reptiles to the yakshas, etc.; and trees and plants are the lowest of all these energies....
    Vishnu is the highest and most immediate of all the energies of Brahman, the embodied Brahman, formed of the whole Brahman. On him this entire universe is woven and interwoven: from him is the world, and the world is in him; and he is the whole universe. Vishnu, the Lord, consisting of what is perishable as well as what is imperishable, sustains everything, both Spirit and Matter, in the form of his ornaments and weapons.
    14. Hinduism. Vishnu Purana 1


    Every object in the world has a spirit, and that spirit is wakan. Thus the spirits of the tree or things of that kind, while not like the spirit of man, are also wakan. Wakan comes from the wakan beings. These wakan beings are greater than mankind in the same way that mankind is greater than animals. They are never born and never die. They can do many things that mankind cannot do. Mankind can pray to the wakan beings for help. There are many of these beings but all are of four kinds. The word Wakan Tanka means all of the wakan beings because they are all as if one.

    Wakan Tanka Kin signifies the chief or leading wakan being, which is the Sun. However, the most powerful of the wakan beings is Nagk Tanka, the Great Spirit, who is also called Taku Shanskan, the Sky....

    Mankind is permitted to pray to the wakan beings. If their prayer is directed to all the good wakan beings, they should pray to Wakan Tanka; but if the prayer is offered to only one of these beings, then the one addressed should be named.... Wakan Tanka is like sixteen different persons; but each person is kan. Therefore, they are only the same as one.
    15. Native American Religions. Dakota Tradition

    O God, You are great,
    You are the one who created me,
    I have no other.
    God, You are in the heavens,
    You are the only one:
    Now my child is sick,
    And You will grant me my desire.
    16. African Traditional Religions. Anuak Prayer (Sudan)

    God has not chosen any son, nor is there any god along with Him; else each god would have surely championed that which he created, and some of them would have overcome others. Glorified be God above all that they allege... exalted be He over all that they ascribe as partners unto Him!
    17. Islam. Qur'an 23.91-92

    Theists claim God exists, per you then, He could cease to exist.
    I think existence trumps ‘to exist.’ God = existence.

    Also bear in mind, our human language is somewhat limiting and can only explain spiritual concepts to a certain degree.

    I'm curious why God needs to be eternal to be the creator?
    Perhaps because the Spirit permeates creation. The Spirit doesn’t require creation – but creation may depend on Spirit.
    Last edited by eye4magic; February 5th, 2019 at 09:52 PM.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  16. #596
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    The same reason why surgeons shouldn't operate on their own family and psychiatrists should not diagnose their own disorders.
    But the aliens in this scenario are the product of the same evolutionary forces that we are. Evolution (natural selection via environmental pressure and genetic mutation) isn't an Earth only process, it would be fundamental to the basic chemistry of our universe. Thus the aliens are just a part of this 'family' as we are.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    So, you are saying it was God's will the asteroid came our way?
    This make the Adam/Eve story a push.
    By the way, did you answer back the last time these two people came up and I said there was no "first human, similar to there was no first chicken/egg".
    You responded with a link that didn't support your conclusion and I don't remember you responding to my last rebut on the subject (my apologies if you did)?
    I'd like to first, reground this point that regardless of the process or any of these points, we can't use the possibility of the asteroid not striking earth as a valid rebuttal of God's existence. That was the fundamental point you brought up and while I'm happy to move on to mitochondrial DNA, I want to lay that particular objection to bed.

    On to genetic lineages, I do remember us having a good discussion on the subject (though I don't recall where). I can't recall what your suggested rebuttal of mitochondrial Eve was or the basic point I was making that wandered onto the subject. The only other context I have was that we ended up talking a bit about speciation and definitions in biology. Given that we are fairly certain, given current genetic understanding, that all humans descended from a single female ancestor about 200,000 years ago I'm not sure how the link didn't support my point.

    Maybe it would be helpful if you could elaborate a bit on what your objection here is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Then you believe we can roll back time (in conception) to see the BB, but rolling it forward again, the asteroid in question may miss Earth because of some other "process"?
    Again, I'm not stating my opinion here. I'm saying that materialists hold such a conception.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    So we have the same level of confidence regarding the BB happening as how the moon originated??
    Support please...
    Actually, I would say that the BB is far, far more accepted than any specific origin theory for the moon. There is still very active debate on what the moon is (fundamentally) and how it got there. Accretion vs Capture vs Co-Fission is still actively debated amongst astrophysicists even if the former holds most of the sway.

    https://www.space.com/25322-moon-for...-theories.html
    https://www.psi.edu/epo/moon/moon.html
    https://phys.org/news/2016-10-theory-moon.html

    These links are good examples of just how much debate is going on in this field, even if impact to accretion is the, by far, reigning theory.

    That isn't quite the case with the BB though. We are certainly still debating some of the details (how do the fundamental forces merge for example), but no on is arguing the equivilant "the big bang didn't happen, a fundamentally different event, say eternal inflation, tired light, or steady state. The best I can find of any of those kinds of theories is general papers using techniques to show why they are impossible (see this for example: https://arxiv.org/search/?query=tire..._first&size=50). The kind of fundamental discussion about theories that are categorically different (rather than different approaches to the same starting point) just isn't happening in physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Yes. This is where I was going. "No center". We can "see" 15 billion yrs'ish. If we traveled to that distance, we might "see" another 15 billion yrs...
    That depends greatly on the geometry of the universe. If the universe is, in fact, a sphere or something like it, with us on the outside of that sphere, by travelling another 15 billion light years you would just come back to your original spot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I understand. You didn't convince me.
    Perhaps applying the same reasoning to a slightly different set of circumstances will help illustrate the issuse. Imagine I made the argument that we could go from a rational belief n zero gods to a rational belief in 1 with no underlying argument. I think I would be rightly pilloried for invoking an irrational claim. That is essentially what is being done here. We are adding other beings to the conclusion absent any rational reason to do so. Because an argument allows for a possible state does not make all possible states warranted or rational.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    The "conclusion drawn" was the cause must not be affected by our time, not that it can not have a temporal component at all.
    Could you elaborate why you think that that is the case? Where did I state that or why is it a logical inference from what I said?

    The original argument presented by me is in post 574 (http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post562974)

    My specific statement was:
    We can find my initial review of why it requires an aphysical, atemporal, powerful intentful cause here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post486297

    To whit:

    The first cause described above must by definition be [intentful], if it were a simple mechanical cause we cannot have a situation where the universe (the effect) does not exist while the cause does. The statement is If A then B for a mechanical cause/effect. You cannot by definition have A and not B.

    This Cause must obviously be transcendent beyond space and time since it creates those dimensions.

    This leaves the personal part of the conclusion. This logical necessity arises from the observation of effects within the universe that are, by logical necessity, not present within the First Cause. Only a sentient cause can produce an effect in a dimension it does not inhabit. IE a pencil that can only move on the X axis is not going to create a line along the Y axis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I said "existing and acting absent time".
    Yes. How did my response not cover that question? If what we mean by being doesn't require a temporal component, how would it be illogical for a being to "be said to exist or act absent a temporal component?"
    "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.


  17. #597
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    822
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    It's interesting to note that the world's religious sacred texts as different as they are, different cultures, different geographical locations, written and recorded thousands of years apart do share a few powerful common treads. One of which is God’s existence/oneness.
    The more recent you get this is true, but only since monotheism has taken hold. Prior to that, not as much.

    ---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I think existence trumps ‘to exist.’ God = existence.
    Even is God is the definition of existence, He would still exist would he not? IOW, if He didn't exist, He couldn't act.

    ---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Also bear in mind, our human language is someone limiting and can only explain spiritual concepts to a certain degree.
    I could not agree more with you here
    This is why I (lately) tend to use/write/try to relate/in several different terms to get my idea across. I have noticed certain people here will latch on to a particular word to argue against as apposed to the idea being presented.

    Also, I am constantly saying/meaning one thing and Squatch, in this thread for instance "hears" something different. Language is a tough deal, just try living with a woman
    Not picking on Squatch, I enjoy talking with him a lot. He gives me a different perspective, usually a reasoned one, but it is still difficult "communicating" effectively. Most of the time, I think I am just not articulating my position clearly....


    (because he would agree me if I had).

  18. #598
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,414
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Even is God is the definition of existence, He would still exist would he not? IOW, if He didn't exist, He couldn't act.
    Yes, God exists but the confusion with this line of thinking, and the reason I find this type of terminology tricky, especially in debate, is that we humans think within a materialistic framework. When something bleeps on to our observable radar we say it exists. It exists while we can pick up its frequency and when it bleeps out, frequency disappears [returns to ashes], we say (assume) it doesn’t exist.

    As far as God/Spirit, sure, God exists within existence. However, so far we can only measure with current instruments and observe what physically exists. We don’t have instruments that can measure the fundamental nature of existence. But we do have the ability to experience the Spirit (existence).

    I could not agree more with you here
    This is why I (lately) tend to use/write/try to relate/in several different terms to get my idea across. I have noticed certain people here will latch on to a particular word to argue against as apposed to the idea being presented.
    Yes. this is true. Often a debate starts out as a big idea and then it gets chiseled down to specifics.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  19. #599
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    822
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Yes, God exists but the confusion with this line of thinking, and the reason I find this type of terminology tricky, especially in debate, is that we humans think within a materialistic framework.
    We tend to think that way because when we hit our thumb with a hammer, it hurts. Every time. So we can be pretty sure that whatever the total framework of reality, there is definitely (at least currently) a material component to existence. I don't think this can be denied effectively. You can say there is more, and maybe there is, but this "more" is currently working thru physical/material form.

    ---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    It exists while we can pick up its frequency and when it bleeps out, frequency disappears [returns to ashes], we say (assume) it doesn’t exist.
    Kinda, but if there are ashes, we can be reasonably sure it existed as something else before it "turned to ashes".

    ---------- Post added at 05:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post

    Yes. this is true. Often a debate starts out as a big idea and then it gets chiseled down to specifics.
    Not at all what I meant. Of course it gets down to specifics. The point I was making is when a person overlooks the idea (usually for lack of a good rebuttal) their opponent is presenting and instead focuses on a particular word meaning, the conversation is going to slow.

    Also, like now, sometimes one just doesn't make their point clear enough to be understood the first time around.
    Make sense?

  20. #600
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,414
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You can say there is more, and maybe there is, but this "more" is currently working thru physical/material form.
    Yes, it does indeed work through the form. So why don’t many people not feel and experience the Spirit in their life if it exists? This would solve so many problems and address so many questions … right? If we only could experience our existence (Spirit) instead of just existing as a bleep on the radar, there might be far less confusion about God's existence? There actually is a good, logical reason for our lack of sensitivity to the experience of the divine in our life. We’re discussing that on the other thread.

    Kinda, but if there are ashes, we can be reasonably sure it existed as something else before it "turned to ashes".
    And how are you reasonably sure the love you feel for your family/partner, friends is real? Does love leave ashes or do our loved ones somehow experience its invisible existence when we bleep off the radar?
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

 

 
Page 30 of 31 FirstFirst ... 20 26 27 28 29 30 31 LastLast

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
  •