Ed

Yes, so then you investigate those claims by checking claims in the bible that can be verified such as with archeaology. If it is found to be accurate in areas that can be verified then it is likely to be accurate in areas that cannot be verified by archaeology, ie spiritual truths like God's characteristics. And in fact it has been found to be accurate in areas that can be verified with archaeology. 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.

Quote:

Ed: In the bible we learn his other characteristics. Rim: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.

He cannot but his chosen people can be if he allows it.

Quote:

Ed: But we can reason that He has some of those characteristics without the bible. Rim:From the above arguments, no, we cannot. Let's look at what lies below:

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.

Quote:

Ed: Because if he created ALL that exists then by definition, he is has ALL power, Rim h? 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.

Relative to us since he created ALL then that is all power. But yes only thru the scriptures can we obtain a better grasp of his power.

Quote:

Ed: therefore He has all knowledge since he knows all that he created, which is all that exists. Rim nly 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.

If, in addition, you had created the essence of the thing then you would know ALL. God not only created the universe but also its very essence.


[b] No, the problem is you don't see the larger picture.

Datheron

Poor Ed. The one innocent little post that he makes has turned into a full-fledged discussion with some 3-4 theists waiting for his response. Good thing he doesn't put much effort in his posts, though; otherwise, it'd be a waste of both ours and your time. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

SingleDad

Ed

This is simply fallacious. Were it true, we would be compelled to believe in the historical existence of Scarlett O'Hara.

This has been disconfirmed by a great many former theists here on these boards.

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.

Neither do you. You just have to accept on faith that murder, genocide, rape, incest, and slavery are good in the "larger picture".

GunnerJ

Ed- Your entire argument has been reduced to an appeal to scripture. Frankly, I find your statements that the Bible has been confirmed by archeology and science, and can therefore be trusted elsewhere, to be laughable. Unless you can esablish the authority of scripture, I am under no obligation to accept arguments from it.

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.

Quote:

Ed: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. Dat:I have already explained to you, more than once, why we CANNOT extrapolate into something which we have absolutely no information about!

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.

Quote:

Dat: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.

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!

Quote:

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

No, even gas particles operate according to laws of physics and nature. If it were truly chaotic then it would not even do that. We just call random because we can not predict it. Also, if you are refering to chaos theory even that is not truly chaotic. It is based on algorithims which is a type of math and math is just a type of logic. And logic is not chaotic.

Quote:

Ed:Irrational. The universe is not an effect of communism. Dat:Exactly. (Note to Ed: this series of "points" was typed to show you the irrationality of your point.)

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.

Quote:

Ed: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. Dat: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.

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.


[b] Fraid so, see above about the laws of logic especially the law of sufficient cause.

calvaryson

If you want to communicate with God you have to to do so with an open heart and mind. If before you communicate with someone or with God you've already made up your mind then where is the room for response? Closed hearts and minds receive nothing but hardening. "Those who ignore instruction despise themselves, but those who heed admonition gain understanding." Proverbs 15:32

Ed

I am afraid you have the common misunderstanding of the law of cause and effect. It is not that every THING has a cause, it is every EFFECT has a cause. That is why something can logically be a cause and not an effect and therefore not require a cause.

Datheron

Ed,

I don't even know why I bother. Perhaps because it's somewhat interesting to see what you can come up with...

Knowing what you are does not give you the knowledge nor the right to begin judging other animals. 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.

Prehistory? 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.

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.

&lt;sighs&gt; Do you know what type of math we're talking about? It's called "probability"; a field which can only have statistical answers based on large amounts of data. It's a very well-known fact that if we isolate the data points of statistics, we will find completely random results...this is a fundamental property of the Universe, as far as we can tell. Gaseous molecules follow the general laws of physics as a whole, but I challenge you to make every single molecule follow some law; impossible. And of course, you're fully welcome to show me how "the Universe is not random", despite all the evidence for this; just be sure to actually back it up with something other than the Bible and ignorant half-assed knowledge.

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.

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.

Then does the existence of evil mean that God is evil? Or how about the existence of non-existence, which makes God non-existant? Perhaps the existence of sin means that God is sinful as well? No - you have to show me, step by step, exactly how you came about with the logic that these unrelated coincidences of the Universe (BTW, the galaxies example is because of gravity, not God) is somehow attributed by sufficient cause to some war-God deity.

Ed

We can see that that water can remove soil particles and transport them empirically so yes an event as you describle could logically be extrapolated to eventually remove a large amount of soil a create a river bed. But there is no observable process that can create anything even close to consciousness from non-consciousness, so your analogy fails.

Quote:

Syn: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.

Actually it does require intelligent intervention but it occurred long before this event. The growth and development of a human is the result of very complex program encoded in a complex linguistic type code called DNA. Such a program has only been observed to be produced by an intelligence.

Quote:

Ed: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. Syn: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.

No, the correct formulation of the law of causality states that every EFFECT requires a cause NOT every THING. Not all things require a cause. Something can logically be a cause and not an effect and therefore not require a cause. Therefore a person that is not an effect does not require a personal cause.

[b] How? See my explanation above the correct understanding of the law of causality.

Ed

I already presented the empirical evidence for persons producing the personal, now it is your turn to produce your empirical evidence.

Quote:

Ed: Conscience is the part of your personality that deals with your sense of morality. Rim K. Now, why, exactly, does such a thing require a God of the Gaps to explain?

Because morality cannot come from amorality.

Quote:

Ed: Etc. refers to the other things that make you, you. Rim:So vague and mysterious!

What's wrong? You don't know who you are? Is what makes you you, vague and mysterious?

Quote:

Ed: Another example is propositional communication. Rim:Just curious, what do you mean by "propositional communication?"

It is what we are doing right now. Communicating with propositions.

Quote:

Ed: 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. Rim: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?

You are still erroneously assuming that an effect is a mirror image of its cause. See above.

[b] Just stating that they don't doesn't make it so. You have to demonstrate it.