Metacrock

This is a real basic mistake. First, there is no competing field of God concepts. There are differences in the way people view God, but any God concept has to include a priori the notions of first cause and necessary being or we aren't dealing with God at all. So that is irrelivant that many of them include that, they all do, so what?

Secondly, it establishes the first premise (by it I mean first cause) form which one can deduce the existence of God. Once you establish first cause it's bascially just short trip next door to any God concept. Why? Because first cause must eternal and necessary, and it is in and of itself part of the basic major attributes of God. In fact all of these things are: first casue, necessary being, etenrality. That's a basic job description for any concept of God.

HRG

That's because you postulate that everyone has to accept your definition of God(1). If so, you have to demonstrate that most people, starting from the first animists, had a notion of God(1) and thought in terms of first cause etc. Good luck.

It doesn't, of course. A first cause which just triggered the beginning of the universe and then ceased to exist is conceivable.

God(1), to be more exact. Let us keep the definitions straight. Any supernatural being with far-reaching powers is a god, unless you see everything through the blinders of monotheism.

Again: for any concept of God(1) as you define it; but then you cannot claim a universal experience of God. For God(1) you need theology; but theology is quite a late development in human culture. For instance - what was the "necessary and eternal being" of the Aztec religion ?

BTW, dualist religions (like Manichaeism or Parsee/Zoroaster) require two necessary beings.

Regards.
HRG.

GunnerJ

Ed-

Wrong You made an artificial distiction between "personal" and "impersonal" and then placed an artificial barrier between them. I am under no obligation to knock down your arbitary distinctions and causational barriers. Unless you wish to define "personal" as "that which cannot come from the personal" you have no case; and if you did define it such, you would still have no case, because you'd be employing circular reasoning.

Once again, more artificial, arbitrary definitions, distinctions, and walls, with no reason behind them.

No, your defining personal in such a obfuscated and shallow way is "vague and mysterious." You really think including "what makes you you" in the definition of "personal" is a logical argument against the "personal arising from the impersonal?"

What, using Internet message boards is propostitional communication? Be specific, get off your crutch of obfuscationism and see if you can still wlak on those theistic legs.

Above: "For example, an early scientist determining the cause of rain might notice that rain falls whenever clouds are over head. So he may deduce that clouds are the cause of rain and that the clouds are made up of water or have what it takes to make water. "

Besides the fact that the whole argument is a vague, poorly constructed analogy, and thus explains nothing, this is the problem:

You made the following analogy: "The First Cause is to the Universe as a stormcloud is to rain." Thus, if we can infer that rain is made of some of the substance of the cloud, we can infer that the First Cause is made of some of the substace of the Universe (hydrogen and helium) by your own analogy.

Your earlier argument about scientists making inferences from the effects and thus discussing the probabilities of the cause having certain properties fails because science is a tool used to explain observations made about the Universe. The logical processes of science may not work outside the Universe, where your "trancendant" First Cause supposedly exists.

Further, your later argument that the First Cause must be omnipotent eliminates any possible discussion of what properties it must or will probably have, since it can do anything. An omnipotent "unity" of a first cause can create anything, supposedly, even a "diversity within a unity." So which one are you going to throw out: your argument that a "diversity-within-a-unity" Universe must have been created by a "diversity-within-a-unity" First Cause, or that the First Cause must be omnipotent? It's one or the other, bud.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Take your head out of your ass for a second, and look at the previous sequence of events. My staement was a summation of my previous arguments which negate your conditional, that if your arguments hold true, then the first cause argument points to the Xian god. You have to demonstrate the validity of your arguments, which you have yet to do.

Metacrock- That's whole lot of hot air being blown about with no substance behind it. Remember, assertion is not argument.

Ed

Actually Gone with the Wind has some inaccuracies. But anyway, "historical" novels were not invented till the 18th century so your analogy fails, there is no evidence they existed prior to that time. The verification procedure I mentioned above is standard for historians when studying ancient documents. If the document is found to be accurate in events that can be independently verified then it is likely to be considered generally accurate in events that cannot be independently verified. Of course, since most secular historians have an anti-supernatural bias, anything supernatural is eliminated a priori.

Quote:

Ed:So then you try to communicate with the God of the bible thru prayer as that book tells you to and he will confirm his existence to you thru experience. SD:This has been disconfirmed by a great many former theists here on these boards.

Hardly, you would have to do a study on presuppositions they had when they tried to communicate with God. Your presuppositions can blind you to God's communication. Of course, by the time you do the study a natural bias sets in. All humans have a natural bias against the Christian God.

Quote:

Ed:I admit that this little reasoning exercise is not the best way to learn about his characteristics, the best way is thru his communication to us, the bible. SD:The only thing one can learn from the bible is the details of the mythology and superstitions of a pretechnological tribe of rather savage goatherds.

Actually many things taught in the scriptures are ahead of their time. One of which was that the universe had a definite beginning, this was confirmed by Big Bang theory. And many of the laws regarding cleanliness and dietary laws show some understanding of the transmission of pathogens and parasites.


[b] Such things are not good in the larger picture, but sometimes God allows such bad things to happen in order that great good may occur later.

Ed

Only the scriptures teach that the cause of the universe is a diversity within a unity. And this truth was discovered long before it was known that the universe was also diversity within a unity.
And though you may think it laughable, the scriptures have been shown time and again to be generally historically reliable.

GunnerJ

No, it does not. The doctrine of the trinity was [b]invented[/i] 400 years after (the supposed) Jesus' (supposed) death. I'd like to see relevant passages in the Bible that specifically claim that God is a "diversity within a unity."

"This truth?" You're arguing from what you are trying to prove. "This unfounded, dogmatic, mythological assertion" is more like it. Oh, and it wasn't "discovered," is was "invented;" about 400 years after the time Jesus was supposed to be living.

Further, you have yet to demonstrate that the Universe is a "diversity within a unity," as your definition of this term is so vague as to be rendered meaningless.

Yeah, just as long as we ignore most of Genesis and the Gospels, both of which have no supporting evidence, and, in many cases, run contrary to the evidence we have.

Ed

Quote:

Originally posted by Datheron: [QB]Ed, I don't even know why I bother. Perhaps because it's somewhat interesting to see what you can come up with...

Well thats the first nice thing you have said to me!

Quote:

Ed:The basis for my definition is knowing what I am, ie a person. Some animals do have some aspects of personality like a simple mind and some forms of emotions. But they do not have a full personality. Which includes a true will and a conscience, abstract thinking, and the ability to communicate propositionally and etc. The question still stands even for animals, how can the impersonal even produce the simpler aspects of the personal that animals have? The answer is, it cannot and has never been observed to be able to do so. Dat:Knowing what you are does not give you the knowledge nor the right to begin judging other animals.

I am not sure what you mean by judge, but animal behaviorists make "judgements" about animals minds and how much they are similar or disimilar to humans all the time.

Quote:

Dat:What you are describing is intelligence, which is definitely not unique to humans and is not a part of the definition of "personal". Furthermore, you have no evidence that whatever you choose to define as "personal" resides only within humans; nor can you give me any evidence or reason that suggests that the personal must somehow come from more personal beings; the fact that we are the only example of "personalism" means that any statement that you make is baseless on a lack of comparison.

Intelligence is most definitely part of the definition of person. Animals have some intelligence but most scientists agree that they can not do abstract reasoning. Everything that I have mentioned most scientists agree that animals do not have. I have already given you the evidence that only persons can produce the personal, this has been empirically observed throughout all of human history.

Quote:

Ed:Cosmologists and paleontologists do it all the time when they extrapolate into prehistory, we know nothing empirically about prehistory. So we extrapolate what we observe in the present into the past. And that is what I am doing except in relation to the universe. We can extrapolate what we know about this universe into outside the universe. Dat rehistory? That is an assumption that physical laws, say, work in four-dimensional space-time - a very reasonable assumption. This comes from the fact that 500 years of scientific discovery through time still shows the consistency of physical laws...and we don't have such a luxury on anything outside our Universe.

Well logic has been shown consistent throughout all of human history. So why not assume it is valid outside the universe? We should assume it is valid until proven otherwise, that is what scientists have always done.

Quote:

Ed:No, all physics tells us is that at the origin of hte universe the laws of physics no longer applied, NOT the laws of logic. These are two totally different things. The very fact that we can come to the conclusion that the laws of physics no applied at the origin is by using the laws of logic. Without the laws of logic we cannot say ANYTHING about that or ANYTHING else! Dat:Hallelujah! Yes, that was what I was trying to tell you, time and time again - we can't tell of anything beyond our Universe. Why do you think scientists have stopped their assumption in the laws of physics? Because we have no reason to believe that they work; there is no comparison to be made, no observation that makes sense, and no scraps of evidence that can be compiled and puzzled into a logical extrapolation (note that prehistory, your counter-example, does require multiple sources of data for credibility). You have been using the argument that "cosmologists do this too", but then you turn around when they stop at a well-defined point, and proceed on in contradiction to your previous reason of why we can extend these laws.

You misunderstood my post, I said the laws of physics and the laws of logic are two different things, with logic we are not constrained to this physical universe like physics. Logic like math and numbers can transcend the physical.

This is the end of part I of my response.

[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: Ed ]</p>

Datheron

Ed,

Eh; forgive my rudeness, if you will. It's just so very frustrating talking time and time with you when you only know very little of the topic and usually posts very short answers.

But they are hypotheses at best, and certainly not scientific facts which can be absolute. For example, scientists discovered that cockroaches have the ability to navigate through a maze; however, that does not mean that cockroaches only have the intelligence to navigate mazes, but rather that they may possess the ability to do more interesting things.

No, scientists definitely do not agree on anything of the sort - they agree that the findings so far show no indication of animal intelligence on the level of abstract thought, but that says nothing about its existence in animals. You're trying to make absolute statements on animal behavior based on very crude understanding of the minds of animals, which is dubious at best.

Well, perhaps because "all of human history" is still within this Universe?

As for what "scientists have always done", that is a false statement, and shame on you for trying to push it as truth. Nothing is assumed to be valid without some verification; whether that be in the form of a formal proof, some mathematical proof, or deductive logical reasoning, there is always some rationale behind the extrapolation. Furthermore, as I've mentioned before, a lot of scientific findings are actually in limbo until multiple sources can verify its validity - case in point, Einstein's general relativity was detailed mathematically and logically, but it took direct observation (experiment) to solidify the idea, and even then there is still wiggle room (in the light of a contradicting Quantum Mechanical world). All in all, you cannot assume beyond what you know, and no scientist falls to that fallacy.

But on what basis do you make that claim? I have already explained above why this is fallacious; "physical world" has nothing to do with it (for all we know, it can be another physical Universe outside of this one). Read above for more detail on what I'm talking about, but you have to stop using this weak argument.

GunnerJ

Ed- Please reconcile these two statements of yours:

You are here appealing to the idea of burden of proof, a scientific principle, in saying that, since no animal has been observed to have "personality," we have no reason to believe they do. Then:

Well, I guess I shouldn't expect internal consistancy from a Bible-believer, but really!

Ed

So you are saying that some molecules do not obey the laws of physics, ie nature? In other words they are doing something supernatural? I thought you didnt believe in the supernatural. So occasional supernatural events occur? Hmm thats interesting...... I am afraid most physicists would disagree with you. I think that they would say all gas molecules obey the laws of physics. Now of course they cannot predict exactly where and how every gas molecule will move(maybe that is the randomness you are referring to), but they never violate the laws of physics and therefore are not truly chaotic or totally random. BTW there is no need for the crude personal attack.

Quote:

Ed:No, my point is based on the opposite of irrationality, ie it is based on fundamental laws of logic. Trying to say that political views can create a universe is equivalent to the argument for God using the Law of Causality is the most absurd analogy I have encountered in my many years of debating atheists. Dat:That's what I was trying to tell you - it is not based on any fundamental law of logic, only a twisted version that is merely an post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy - what in hell does God's trinity have to do with the Universe? And what other properties of God are missing in our Universe, which by that bold assumption should definitely be there? And exactly where in these "diversities" that there holds a demand for some "diverse" God? Furthermore, polytheistic religions also hold this property, with much more sense and manages not to contradict itself (three within one, but three nevertheless, except that it's really just one...boogles the mind). Indeed, this horrible explanation is about the worst I've seen or heard.

Political views are not outside the universe and could in fact be argued that they are effects and not causes, political views are not causes the people that believe them are. So they cannot be the cause of the universe. So using logic eliminates them and confirms God. Polytheistic religions are just diversities, each god is a different god so there is no unity and therefore they cannot be the cause of the universe. The correct understanding of the trinity is not a contradiction. God is three in person and one in essence(his divinity). That is not contradictory. It is similar to a husband and wife being two in person and one in their humanity.

Quote:

Ed:Been there, done that. And always receive the same old boring responses. Sometimes I wish they would come up with something new. Might make it more interesting but only a beautiful woman can rock my world. Dat:Same old boring responses? Guess what I've been receiving from you? The fact that they are indefinitely more credible, with evolutionists actually knowing the science which they're talking about (rather than your psuedo-science coupled with horrible assumptions, stretched rationalizations, and no evidence whatsoever). Whether you choose to accept them is your own business; discrediting them because you don't like their conclusions only discredits you.

I dont discredit them because I dont like their conclusions because God could have very well have used a type of evolution to create Man but the problem is with the evidence, and as a biologist, I know the evidence for evolution quite well.


[b] The existence of evil and sin is the result of morally autonomous beings living in this universe. Humans are free to choose good or evil and they usually choose evil. Ask SingleDad to explain to you how non-existence does not exist. Actually stellar evolution cannot occur without pre-existing stars. And how did gravity have just the right amount of pull to produce galaxies?