Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HRG · 05-29-2002, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sikh:

The law of causality in regards to the universe is ALWAYS true. What you allude to is quantum events, which do not circumvent the law of causality.

If the "law of causality" means that the same initial state will always lead to the same final state, then quantum events falsify it.

Quote:

Logic leads the rational to believe that the elements of the universe obey the laws of causality, what you are conducting is the fallacy of ignorance

Sorry, you commit an even larger fallacy: that logic can tell us something about the external world.
"All theorems of logic say the same: to wit, nothing" (L. Wittgenstein)

All we need for scientific observations is approximate causality on the macroscopic level and statistical correlations on the microscopic level. Causality as such is not needed, and probably false.

[/QUOTE]

. Moreover, if things did not obey the law of causality, then we would run into the problem of infinite regression, not mentioning contradicting the first law of thermodynamics.
[quote]
A. There is no problem of infinite regression.

B. The 1LoT aka conservation of energy aka invariance under time translation is perfectly compatible with lack of causality, as long as the different possible final states all have the same energy of the initial state.

You have a good grasp of the terminology of physics, but I'm sorry to say that your grasp of the concepts behind the words isn't as firm.

HRG,
your friendly neighborhood physicist.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: HRG ]

HRG · 05-29-2002, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
[QB]Arguements for the Existence of God:

1. The principle of causality. Every effect must have an adequate cause. The entire universe, therefore, must have an adequate cause -- since it could not produce itself. Further, that adequate cause of the universe must itself be uncaused, self-sufficient, and eternal. That prime cause is God.

2. The contingency of the universe. The universe does not exist of itself, independently. A contingent universe cannot produce itself but must be produced -- ultimately by a being that exists of itself, without dependence on any other being. That independent being is God.

3. Movement and change in the universe. Any movement or change derives from an original motive force or mover. Ultimately, all the movement or change in the universe must be referred back to a prime mover which is itself unmoved and unchanging. That prime mover is God.

4. Design in the universe. There is order in the universe. Such order could not exist without plan and design -- and ultimately a mind or intelligence. That supreme intelligence is God.

5. Conscience. Man is conscious of moral obligation. Moral obligation is impossible without law, and law is immpossible without a lawgiver. That supreme Lawgiver, Who emboodied His law in the very nature of things, is God.

6. Perfection in the universe. There are many perfections in the universe, and none of them is sufficient to produce itself. Therefore, they all derive from a being Who possesses all of them in an ent and causative manner. That perfect being is God.

7. There is a widespread human testimony concerning the existence of a Supreme Being, although different opinions are adavnced regarding his nature and attributes. Some hold it would be difficult to explain this tesimony if a Supreme Being did not exist.

People have already pointed out the fallacies in those arguments which make them utterly invalid.

But even if they were valid, where is your argument that each beings referred to in one of the 7 arguments is unique, and that those 7 beings are identical ?
The creator of the universe (if he exists) might be a low-level functionary in a whole uncountably transfinite divine hierarchy. Morality might be assigned to a different department. Designers and producers may be different entities, and so on.

Did you think that calling all 7 alleged entities "God" would make their differences vanish ?

Regards,
HRG.

AJ113 · 05-29-2002, 12:42 PM

Quote:

HRG: The creator of the universe (if he exists) might be a low-level functionary in a whole uncountably transfinite divine hierarchy. Morality might be assigned to a different department. Designers and producers may be different entities, and so on.

Perhaps, but the application of Occam's Razor would produce answers closer to Gemma's than yours.

Gemma Therese · 05-29-2002, 01:41 PM

Dear HRG:

You said: But even if they were valid, where is your argument that each beings referred to in one of the 7 arguments is unique, and that those 7 beings are identical ?
The creator of the universe (if he exists) might be a low-level functionary in a whole uncountably transfinite divine hierarchy. Morality might be assigned to a different department. Designers and producers may be different entities, and so on.

Did you think that calling all 7 alleged entities "God" would make their differences vanish ?"

The attributes of God:

God possesses -- and is -- all the perfections of being, without limitation. Because He is infinite, all of these perfections are one, perfectly united in Him. Man, however, because of his limited power of understanding views these perfections separately, as distinct characteristics -- even though they are not actually distinct in God.

Hope this helps.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]

Ion · 05-29-2002, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese:

...
The attributes of God:

God possesses -- and is -- all the perfections of being, without limitation. Because He is infinite, all of these perfections are one, perfectly united in Him. Man, however, because of his limited power of understanding views these perfections separately, as distinct characteristics -- even though they are not actually distinct in God.

Hope this helps.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]

Gemma, have you learned anything from this thread so far?

Apparently not much, since your last post I am quoting persists in the same defects you started with.

Please, learn from what had been already said to you in this thread.
Review it, then disprove your last post.

You should be able to evolve too, as the discussion evolves.

Jobar · 05-29-2002, 02:12 PM

Gemma:
"The attributes of God:

God possesses -- and is -- all the perfections of being, without limitation. Because He is infinite, all of these perfections are one, perfectly united in Him. Man, however, because of his limited power of understanding views these perfections separately, as distinct characteristics -- even though they are not actually distinct in God.

Hope this helps."

Ah, no, I'm afraid it doesn't. You are simply making unsupported assertions, about a supposedly infinite being- and we, with only "limited power of understanding", can make no definite statements about such a being.

If you choose to fall back on faith, and ignore the fact that here are no reasonable proofs for your God, you cannot convince anyone here- because all of the unbelievers here share a distrust of blind faith.

If you have other arguments than the seven that have been so thoroughly deconstructed, please present them.

Gemma Therese · 05-29-2002, 02:35 PM

<<<If you choose to fall back on faith, and ignore the fact that here are no reasonable proofs for God, you cannot convince anyone here- because all of the unbelievers here share a distrust of blind faith.

If you have other arguments than the seven that have been so thoroughly deconstructed, please present them.>>>

So thoroughly deconstructed? You may think whatever you wish.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

Ion · 05-29-2002, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese:

...
So thoroughly deconstructed? You may think whatever you wish.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

Well, yes Gemma.
Can you take them up to the Nobel prize commitee for Physics, as the explanation that this is how the natural laws do operate?
I bet you cannot.

Samhain · 05-29-2002, 02:55 PM

As usual, my point is systematically ignored.

daemon · 05-29-2002, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
So thoroughly deconstructed? You may think whatever you wish.

So, your ignoring my arguments constitutes refutation? Here I thought it was because you couldn't answer, and had simply accepted the failure of your arguments...

05-29-2002, 01:41 PM	#104
Gemma Therese Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: new york Posts: 608	Dear HRG: You said: But even if they were valid, where is your argument that each beings referred to in one of the 7 arguments is unique, and that those 7 beings are identical ? The creator of the universe (if he exists) might be a low-level functionary in a whole uncountably transfinite divine hierarchy. Morality might be assigned to a different department. Designers and producers may be different entities, and so on. Did you think that calling all 7 alleged entities "God" would make their differences vanish ?" The attributes of God: God possesses -- and is -- all the perfections of being, without limitation. Because He is infinite, all of these perfections are one, perfectly united in Him. Man, however, because of his limited power of understanding views these perfections separately, as distinct characteristics -- even though they are not actually distinct in God. Hope this helps. In God's Love, Gemma Therese [ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2002, 02:12 PM	#106
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Gemma: "The attributes of God: God possesses -- and is -- all the perfections of being, without limitation. Because He is infinite, all of these perfections are one, perfectly united in Him. Man, however, because of his limited power of understanding views these perfections separately, as distinct characteristics -- even though they are not actually distinct in God. Hope this helps." Ah, no, I'm afraid it doesn't. You are simply making unsupported assertions, about a supposedly infinite being- and we, with only "limited power of understanding", can make no definite statements about such a being. If you choose to fall back on faith, and ignore the fact that here are no reasonable proofs for your God, you cannot convince anyone here- because all of the unbelievers here share a distrust of blind faith. If you have other arguments than the seven that have been so thoroughly deconstructed, please present them.

05-29-2002, 02:35 PM	#107
Gemma Therese Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: new york Posts: 608	<<<If you choose to fall back on faith, and ignore the fact that here are no reasonable proofs for God, you cannot convince anyone here- because all of the unbelievers here share a distrust of blind faith. If you have other arguments than the seven that have been so thoroughly deconstructed, please present them.>>> So thoroughly deconstructed? You may think whatever you wish. In God's Love, Gemma Therese

05-29-2002, 02:55 PM	#109
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	As usual, my point is systematically ignored.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.