|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God caused or uncaused? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Rob
God did not have a beginning, therefore He does not need a cause. I have replied to this before. How can something that had no beginning be said to exist? Since you claim God never began then the obvious consequence is that he does not exist for the simple fact that by this definition {no beginning} he neverbegan to exist. You have simply traded one difficulty for another Rob.
He is the Alpha and the Omega; both beginning and end. You do realize that this contradicts your statement that God had no beginning nor end don't you? Edited by sidelined, : No reason given. "The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss." Thomas Carlyle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Phat
Are you saying that there is no such thing as an original thought? I am sorry, Phat,but I fail to connect the relevance of an original thought with the question I asked.
sidelined writes: How can something that had no beginning be said to exist? If something has no beginning then this is equivalent to saying it never existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Phat
Why must it have never existed? What if it always existed? That is the problem Phat. If something never began to exist {no beginning} then we can hardly turn around and say that it does have existence now can we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
rob
There is no known self-organizing mechanism in nature. That is a myth. At the very least, laws exist to guide certain processes. But the mechanism itself cannot have created of the laws The laws{which are human constructs describing observations} are the result of the mechanism not the reason for it.The mechanism is a result of the physics of the atom which in turn govern the properties of the different elements which in turn form the chemical processes that occur between elements which under the influence of fundamental forces produce the phenomena in nature including self-assembly of proteins. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given. "The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss." Thomas Carlyle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Rob
So the universe is not actully logical? We invented logic to describe it? The universe operates according to rules that we can describe and in that sense they follow a logical pattern However, the logical patterns that they follow are not based on what humans like or dislike, they are what they are.
You mean the 'Stong Nuclear Force', and the weak Nuclear Force' etc...? In other words, the laws of physics that we invented? The laws of physics are the human invention we use to explain what we observe and what we deduce from investigation of the natural phenomena that we encounter. The Strong nuclear force is the name given to the the binding energy of the nucleus of atoms. The Weak force is the one that describes the process of radioactivity of atoms. Ya boob, these are not "philoawfulgul constructs" they are the result of careful investigation of observable phenomena and are the result of rigorous logic and counterintuitive notions that do not adhere to the prejudices of common sense. They need not adhere to our notions of what is correct but only be consistent with what we observe.
You know, there's a lot of boys out there that actually believed that it was real concrete stuff... but hank you Sidelined. A retort that reflects the authors inability to constructively counter an argument is a desperate act don't you think? "The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss." Thomas Carlyle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Rob
That's the way He is... 'I am that I am. Like I said... Desperate . "The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss." Thomas Carlyle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Rob
You said logic is external. That it is what is is beyond human bias. I was thanking you for agreeing with me. It's not desperate... it's a thank you. I did not say logic was external. I said, and I quote, The universe operates according to rules that we can describe and in that sense they follow a logical pattern.However, the logical patterns that they follow are not based on what humans like or dislike, they are what they are. We are included in those patterns and they are derived from our observations and investigations. Coupled with mathematics we are able to ascertain things that are not immediately apparent to the senses themselves but ,since they follow logical process and are consistent with what we observe {not to mention the predictions we make about phenomena we have not yet attained the technology to unveil} they are in that sense considered real.The phenomena are the doctrine since they are what we use to test our models of the world. Philosophers suppose while scientists test and that is an enormous distinction. Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "~I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: '~I am has sent me to you.'" What do you want me to say, 'No, that's wrong sidelined!' ??? No, this verse does not even qualify as wrong. In the first sentence the speaker {god} is stating I{god} am who I{god} am. No big deal since there is no contradiction in the statement. I{sidelined} am who I{sidelined} am also.Is this somehow profound in your mind because if it is then perhaps you can explain that? Then the second sentence says "I am has sent me to you". In order to be logically consistent this translates to God has sent me {moses} to you.Since this verse was somehow supposed to make clear God's name which Moses wanted to utter unto the Israelites perhaps you could further explain how this phrase actually does that and at the same time logically connect how this phrase agrees with my own {or even vice versa}. In your last few replies, you were attempting to disagree, but actually agreed, because you were being logical. and that is what God is. God (reality) is logical. Perhaps you can clarify just where God is logical. Edited by sidelined, : fixed italics "The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss." Thomas Carlyle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Rob
And testing is supposed to be valid (a philsophical premise). Testing is not supposed to be valid,it is demonstrated to be valid and that is the difference. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given. "The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss." Thomas Carlyle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Doddy
Likewise, I could say: 'Faith is not demonstrated to be valid - it is faithfully believed to be valid. This is not at all the same. In this instance not demonstrated and believed are both taken on faith, whereas in my statement to Rob
Testing is not supposed to be valid,it is demonstrated to be valid and that is the difference. Rob stated that testing is supposed{assumed} to be valid whereas in science the test is done on the phenomena and demonstrated{ shown} to be valid{ or invalid as the case may be}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Doddy
Ok, I will write this out nice and simple. 1. Testing is valid.2. Tests demonstrate testing to be valid. 3. Therefore, testing is valid. Ah.I see where you have erred.You thought I was speaking strictly of testing itself. However, if you recall from my post # 105 I said. The phenomena are the doctrine since they are what we use to test our models of the world. Philosophers suppose while scientists test and that is an enormous distinction.
The bold print shows that I was referring all along to phenomena which I argued philosophers "supposed" about while scientist "tested" them.This is a critical difference because in testing the phenomena we learn to understand what can be said about them rather that saying something about them and not checking upon the validity of the statement made. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Rob
Rob writes: Can you provide an example of an evolutionary fact, that falls into this catagory of testable? I sure can. Antibiotic resistance, wherein bacteria manage to adapt to the assault of antibiotics such as penicillin and others is a serious problem faced by humans worldwide.It is through testing that scientists are able to engage in an ongoing "arms race" with these creatures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Rob
You're missing the point mark... Logic wasn't created by God. Logic is God. Reality (God) is logical. Is there a logical reason why God exists? "The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss." Thomas Carlyle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Rob
sidelined writes: Is there a logical reason why God exists? Rob writes: There must be, but since logic is infinite, we cannot have absolute comprehensive understanding of Him. Then Logic is greater than, not the same as, God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Rob
Let us encapsulate what has been discussed in the few posts of ours? Your post #184 where you said
Rob writes: You're missing the point mark... Logic wasn't created by God. Logic is God. Reality (God) is logical. My reply in # 205
sidelined writes: Is there a logical reason why God exists? Then #207 from you
Rob writes: There must be, but since logic is infinite, we cannot have absolute comprehensive understanding of Him. Now you say
Rob writes: No, it's just who God is. Good and complete. Love, harmony, order... coherence. You agreed in #207 that there must be a logical reason for God. Logic then must then restrain God in his actions therefore is greater than God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Rob
Are yo saying that logic is self control? I am saying that you agreed that there must be a logical reason for God.Since a logical reason is agreed to exist for God then the logical reason need exist prior to that of God. Ergo ,God cannot be logic.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024