Synaesthesia

The only process that is known to be able to produce conscious beings is itself blind, algorithmic and aimless. Your premise is known to be false. If you are a creationist, the truth or falsity of this premise is of no issue since the argument is itself invalid.

As with the first cause argument, the premise you base your conclusion upon directly contradicts the conclusion. If the existence of personal beings proves that they were created by a personal entity, the existence of God would itself prove the existence of a meta-god and so on.

If we define God as an uncreated person we contradicted the assumption that persons must produce the personal and the question of where the assumption comes from at all remains a problem.

GunnerJ

Ed-

Well then, based on that definition, there's no reason to believe that a universe with personalities (can we use this term instead of "personal beings?" New term, same definition) must have a personal first cause. "Mind, will, conscience, emotion" are things which do not require a mystical explaination. (Although, the term "conscience" bothers me... do you speak of "consciousness" or the little angel and devil on our shoulders?) BTW, what, exactly, does the term "etc." refer to?

No, I don't agree to that at all. See below.

Why does this require a cause that is a "diversity within a unity?" What logically stops a "pure unity" from creating a "diversity within a unity?" Frankly, I don't see how the natural universe constitutes a diversity within a unity, more like a diverse collection of things in a box. Are you suggesting that the christian god has a container?

No, I don't see why a cause must be even partially reflected in its effect. Please elablorate.

I'll put aside the fact that your arguments do not prove these three characteristics, and go on.

If you can't see how circular this is, I can't help you. If, and this is a big if, you proved that by looking at the universe and its nature, we could determine a tracnendant, personal, unified, self-contained diversity of a deity, we have no reason to say that the Bible is an accurate depiction of it. It certainly describes a god which we have, for the sake of argument, established is factual, but that doesn't make any of its other claims about this god factual. The key word, one you used, is "claims."

Hmm-hmm. This one is almost too easy. A question, if I may; why do you believe that a god capable of creating the universe can be defeated by iron technology? Hey, it's all in the bible.

From the above arguments, no, we cannot. Let's look at what lies below:

Oh? I thought you claimed that god was trancendant? How does god's creation add to his power if he is separte from it? If we argumentitively claim a god who created all things, we are under no obligation to assume that he is omnipotent; for all we know, all that exists represents the limit of his creative power.

Only if we have proved omnipotence. I, being not omnipotent, can create plenty of things without knowing all there is about the things I have created; I only need to know enough to create it.

Ho-ho. Ooh, boy. If the Bible represents God's omnibenevolence, then I don't know HOW to define omnimaliciousness.

Ed

See above for my definition of personal. A relationship with your pet cannot be fully personal because animals do not have full personalities.

Quote:

Ed:The second is law of logic, ie the cause cannot be a part of the effect. Dat:...and you have not shown that the laws of logic have any meaning outside of our Universe!

And you have not shown that it is rational to throw out the laws of logic outside the universe given that we cannot learn anything without them!
The burden of proof is on those who think we should throw them out and end our learning.

Quote:

Ed:And if the third is not true then science has been totally wrong for 100 years and in fact if it is not true then evolution is wrong. Dat:I never said it wasn't true; rather, I don't think it even merits an inquery to its accuracy. A "diversity within a unity" is just one of the many properties that this world holds, all of which can be stretched to make some bizarre and far-fetching connection. For example: - The Universe is naturally chaotic. Therefore anarchy is the correct system of gov't.

Hardly, if the universe was truly and totally chaotic, science would be impossible. There would be no natural laws.

Quote:

Dat:- The Universe is by large uniform throughout (a physics fact, if you want to check up on it), and is decided equal in all directions, therefore communism is the right gov't.

Irrational. The universe is not an effect of communism.

Quote:

Dat:- Evolution shows that the strongest usually survive, therefore fascism/imperialism is the correct form of gov't.

IF darwinian evolution has occurred then your argument has some merit. But given that there is strong evidence against it, fortunately your argument is in trouble.

[b] Hardly, as above, the universe is not the effect of a republic form of government. Though as an aside it is the most biblical form of gov.

Datheron

Ed,

I've read it; not impressed. How, exactly, did you come up with this set of criteria and definition for "personal"? How do you know that other species do not satisfy these criteria, albeit primitively? We have sufficient evidence to prove that primates, for example, can think intelligently; the other properties have yet to be discovered if they exist. No, I don't think you have any basis in your definition, and hence it's worthless.

I have already explained to you, more than once, why we CANNOT extrapolate into something which we have absolutely no information about! I've already given you examples in physics, which is just about the closest we are going to get to something "outside this Universe"; laws do not apply in those situations. To cite another example, any isolated data obtained from assumption of some law (the gaseous content of stars from spectra, for instance) is dubious on its own unless other data from different assumptions verify its validity. The only assumption that science makes is that the Universe is consistent - THIS Universe.

<sighs> Naturally chaotic in configuration. The most abundant form in the Universe is gas, which is extremely chaotic. Particles, when given energy (which is again in the majority), go off in random directions. Quantum mechanics demands randomness and thus chaos. If you want to refute something scientific, do me a favor and know something OF the topic first.

Exactly. (Note to Ed: this series of "points" was typed to show you the irrationality of your point.)

LOL! Do me a favor, Ed, and post this on the E&C forum, along with your so-called "evidence", and read the responses. It'll rock your world.

Exactly! Like I have said, the connection is non-sequitur, which you have kindly pointed out for me again. "Diversity within a unity" doesn't imply God, just as it does not imply any republic form of government.

Oh, and a side note: strangely enough, the only true republic that this world has seen existed in the heretic Greek gov't of the ancient world. Ours is an un-Biblical democratic republic, so you're out of luck again, Ed.

Ed

Just because a statement doesn't explain or prove something doesn't make it false.

Ed

Please give an example of a blind, algorithmic, and aimless process being empirically observed producing a conscious being. What argument is invalid? Just stating an argument is invalid doesn't make it so. You have to demonstrate it.

[b] No, something (including a person) can logically be a cause without being an effect and therefore not require a cause. This is what God is.

Storm and Stress

We are of course talking about St. Thomas Aquanis proof of God. The First Cause argument which has its roots directly traceable to Aristotle.

As a side note, while Aristotle did believe in God. His God was far different than the Judeo-Christian one.

His God was perfect, and therefore must think on only perfect things. Now the only perfect thing in the Cosmos, was himself. So Aristotle's God, ignores man, but constantly meditates on its own perfection.

Hardly a personal God.

The first Cause idea goes like this. Everything is movement. This movement had to begin at some point, and was started by something which itself did not move. This thing Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquanis called The Prime Mover or God.

In essence everything has a Cause and Effect.

The argument of course is, who then
created God.

The counter argument of course is that God is not an Effect, or a Cause but rather the Creator of all known reality.

and another standoff occurs.

Synaesthesia

Implicitly we are talking of evolution. Thus, you are in effect asking me to show you a process that takes millions of years. It is obviously impossible to do such a thing.

This is a lot like asking me to prove that the Mississippi isn't man made by actually *showing* you the river wearing down it's bed over the ages. The very notion is preposterous, there's nothing about the theory of natural river formation that implies that you and I can time travel and directly observe every particle of sediment being moved around.

We can, however, know that it was produced by the moving water by observing how it moves and changes today. We directly observe millions of tiny particles carried and organized. Although we require more information to discern the precise course taken by the river throughout history, we do have enough information to infer the fact that it is indeed a natural formation. That's why we can say that it is the result of natural forces and not intelligent intervention.

However absurd your rhetorical parody of epistemology, there is actually an opportunity to actually observe blind physical processes producing intelligent human beings.

The process of cellular division is not one that requires divine intervention. (Though we don't know absolutely everything there is to about cellular division so I'm sure you could stuff at least a few gods into the gaps.) Before humans are born, the sperm of their daddy combines with the egg of their mummy. The resultant cell begin mitosis and eventually develops into a human being. No division of cells or flap of flagella require intelligent intervention or fairy dust. They are all measurable and occur according to the laws of physics. After a sufficient amount of time, these physical processes unwittingly produce a fully functioning human being.

Ed, you were the one who said that "only persons can produce the personal." If you stand by that, then God MUST have been produced by a person, a meta-god presumably. If all things require a cause and if God is a thing, he must have a cause. The logical consequences really should be obvious. The premise is totally incompatible with the existence of your God.

In the quote above, you repeat the attempt to solve the problem by simply reasserting that God doesn't have a cause and doesn't need a person to create him. This is the very problem. This definition is incompatible with your argument. It is logically impossible to fix this contradiction. Once you have granted that persons do not really require a maker and that objects do not really require a cause, the whole argument falls apart.

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

Ed

Ok, please provide empirical evidence of an impersonal process that has produced personalities. Conscience is the part of your personality that deals with your sense of morality. Etc. refers to the other things that make you, you. Another example is propositional communication.

Quote:

Ed: But Allah is a pure unity and the universe is a diversity within a unity, therefore Allah can be eliminated as the likely cause of the universe. Rim:No, I don't agree to that at all. See below.

Quote:

Ed: Diversity within a unity means that the universe is one entity made up of many galaxies, each galaxy is made up of many stars, and yet each star is different, matter is made up atoms and yet each atom is different. Living things are made up of cells and yet each cell is different, and so on. Rim:Why does this require a cause that is a "diversity within a unity?" What logically stops a "pure unity" from creating a "diversity within a unity?"

In science you study the characteristics of an effect to determine the cause. Theoretically maybe a being that is a pure unity could create a diversity within a unity. But a cause that has that characteristic intrinsic to it is more likely to have the capacity to reproduce that characteristic. 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. And he would be correct.

Quote:

Rim:Frankly, I don't see how the natural universe constitutes a diversity within a unity, more like a diverse collection of things in a box. Are you suggesting that the christian god has a container?

No, because the things that make up the universe are also diversities within unities. For example, there are large clusters of stars called galaxies, a unity, while there are many different
types of galaxies, a diversity. And so on down to the subatomic level.

Quote:

Ed: No, an effect is not a mirror image of its cause but it does reflect characteristics of its cause and it contains some of what it took to produce it. Rim:No, I don't see why a cause must be even partially reflected in its effect. Please elablorate.

See my explanation above.


[b] I never said that they PROVE them with absolute certainty but they do provide strong logical evidence in that direction.

This is the end of Part I of my response.

GunnerJ

Here we go:

Please do not shift the burden of proof. If you propose a supernatural explaination, it's your job to prove it.

OK. Now, why, exactly, does such a thing require a God of the Gaps to explain?

So vague and mysterious!

Just curious, what do you mean by "propositional communication?"

Then, I suppose you wouldn't be opposed to stating that God is mostly empty space, with a little bit of plasmatic hydrogen and heluim?

Allow me to change my statement: Your arguments do not, at all, provide strong logical evidence in that direction.