Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God caused or uncaused?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 192 of 297 (418013)
08-25-2007 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Rob
08-25-2007 9:34 PM


Yet more unsupported assertions.
Personally, I don't think you have the mental capacity to comprehend the issues being discussed here.
Yet another attempt to misdirect attention in the hope the audience will not see you palming the pea and a comment unrelated to any of my posts in the thread as well as a personal attack on the individual as opposed to the message.
As I said in Message 190
jar writes:
The topic, in case you have forgotten, is "God caused or uncaused?"
My personal belief is that GOD is uncaused, but I also realize that is simply a personal opinion and unsupportable. I also think it is pretty unimportant and irrelevant whether or not GOD is caused or uncaused.
That directly addresses the topic. It should be relatively clear to the audience. And it is an attempt to move the thread along.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 9:34 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 9:55 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 194 of 297 (418021)
08-25-2007 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Rob
08-25-2007 9:55 PM


Request denied.
I ask that you please no longer participate in this thread. Thank you in advance.
Unlike a Great Debate, where participation is by invitation only, threads in the General Forums are open to participation by all members. For that reason, and to try to maintain some relevance, I will continue to participate.
As I pointed out in Message 190...
My personal belief is that GOD is uncaused, but I also realize that is simply a personal opinion and unsupportable. I also think it is pretty unimportant and irrelevant whether or not GOD is caused or uncaused.
The next question might be "Why is the question irrelevant and unimportant?"
A basic assumption necessary to addressing the topic of this thread is that God exists. Like many things, the existence of God is unsupportable and must either be accepted or rejected on faith, however to move the discussion forward, we must create an axiom that states "God exists."
In doing that, we are using the mathematical definition of axiom, "a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it."
A proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.
There is a second assumption being made that can also be stated as an axiom, "That GOD is the Creator of the Universe."
Again, that cannot be supported but for the sake of the thread can be accepted as axiomatic.
So we now have two Axioms, That GOD exists and that GOD is the Creator of the Universe.
Next, what are the consequences of those two axioms?
First If GOD is the creator of the Universe, then GOD must have existed before the Universe.
However, we are part of the Universe and cannot see anything that existed before the Universe. Since GOD existed before the Universe, we cannot know whether GOD was caused or uncaused, we cannot even speculate with any logic on the issue. We cannot see whether God caused the Universe or whether it is uncaused.
Since the question is beyond the capabilities of observation, reason or logic, it is both an irrelevant question and unimportant. Whether God is caused or uncaused or the Universe is caused or uncaused is irrelevant. The Universe exists and we exist within it.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 9:55 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 10:54 PM jar has not replied
 Message 202 by Rob, posted 08-26-2007 10:16 AM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 212 of 297 (418085)
08-26-2007 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Rob
08-26-2007 10:16 AM


Who cares?
Is logic valid when it matches the external and internal test and is formed into a composite whole?
Who cares? In this issue it is irrelevant and unimportant.
The question of whether God is caused or uncaused is irrelevant and unimportant as I pointed out in Message 194.
Since we are of this universe, speculating about things that are unrelated to this universe, untestable and unobservable is just plain silly. In the case of the topic of this thread, which in case you have forgotten is "God caused or uncaused?", there is no observable external evidence of God.
Equally valid arguments could be made for either position. I can state an axiom that God is uncaused, or an axiom that God is caused, and we can then develop a series of statements of consequences based on either of those axioms, but nether axiom is proven true, it is simply assumed to be true for the sake of the argument.
You seem to forget the basic Construct.
If God exists, She exists regardless of any evidence that It does not exist.
If God does not exist, then It does not exist regardless of all the evidence She does exist.
Edited by jar, : change the to then

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Rob, posted 08-26-2007 10:16 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Rob, posted 08-26-2007 10:41 AM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 220 of 297 (418095)
08-26-2007 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Rob
08-26-2007 10:41 AM


Re: Who cares?
That remains to be seen. We're having a conversation. This is not a dictatorship.
Please answer the question:
Is logic valid when it matches the external and internal test and is formed into a composite whole?
If you will read Message 212 you will see that I not only answered that question but provided the reasoning behind it.
The question of whether God is caused or uncaused is irrelevant and unimportant as I pointed out in Request denied. (Message 194).
Since we are of this universe, speculating about things that are unrelated to this universe, untestable and unobservable is just plain silly. In the case of the topic of this thread, which in case you have forgotten is "God caused or uncaused?", there is no observable external evidence of God.
Equally valid arguments could be made for either position. I can state an axiom that God is uncaused, or an axiom that God is caused, and we can then develop a series of statements of consequences based on either of those axioms, but nether axiom is proven true, it is simply assumed to be true for the sake of the argument.
You seem to forget the basic Construct.
If God exists, She exists regardless of any evidence that It does not exist.
If God does not exist, then It does not exist regardless of all the evidence She does exist.
If you want, you can state either position as axiomatic, and we could then discuss the consequences of that position. However, the starting assumption is still not proven, simply accepted for the sole instance of the discussion.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Rob, posted 08-26-2007 10:41 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Rob, posted 08-26-2007 11:02 AM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 231 of 297 (418108)
08-26-2007 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Rob
08-26-2007 11:02 AM


False dichotomy.
Rob writes:
quote:
Yes or no.
Is logic valid when it matches the external and internal test and is formed into a composite whole?
ie. is science valid?
That is yet another example of trying to misdirect the audiences attention while you palm the pea.
The fact is, as has been pointed out to you by others in this thread, that logic can be totally internally and externally consistent, formed into a compaoste whole and still be false.
There is another example which I have used here at EvC often, one which is Biblically related.
The Bible speaks of the waters above and the waters below. They pictured a solid sky that held back the waters above, and that the solid land floated on a vast reservoirs of the waters below. It was reasonable, logical and could even be supported by observation. When you dug down through the surface of the earth you found water. When the windows in the heavens opened it rained.
The theory was both internally and externally consistent, formed a composite whole, and was wrong.
You attempt to equate the question of whether or not science is valid with your assertion. The answer of course is that they are unrelated, it is a false dichotomy and that science is sometimes valid, sometimes not.
The difference, and a significant one, is that science then runs tests and experiments to attempt to verify conclusions. It does NOT rely on axioms that are assumed to be true.
The mistake as has been pointed out to you is in confusing Axioms with Hypothesis. The Axiom is assumed to be true and not require proof, the Hypothesis is proposed and then tested.
Logic can be valid, totally valid, and also wrong.
In this topic though, "God caused or uncaused?", there have been no Axioms stated, no Hypothesis made, testing and observation are imposiible. It is a silly, irrelevant and unimportant question.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Rob, posted 08-26-2007 11:02 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Rob, posted 08-26-2007 11:26 AM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 242 of 297 (418121)
08-26-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Rob
08-26-2007 11:26 AM


Re: False dichotomy.
So what is science testing for if not logical coherence?
Actually, understandability as opposed to logic. It doesn't matter if the correct answer is illogical as long as it is actually correct.
And are they not assuming that logical consistency (though sometimes wrong due to lack of information) is axiomatic and our only tool to shed light on reality?
No, they are not making that assumption. Perhaps, at the very beginnings of science such an assumption might have been made but we have progressed beyond that point.
What Science does have is a high degree of confidence that the real world is Understandable, and that position is supported as opposed to axiomatic.
It is not logical that something can be both a wave and a particle, but somethings are. It is not logical that the chair we count on to support our weight is mostly nothing, but that is the fact.
Much of what we learn is not logical. Many things that are logically correct are also known to be wrong and you have been given numerous examples.
BUT this topic is, in case you missed it, "God caused or uncaused?" and so far, you have not addressed that question.
As pointed out in Message 194 and Message 212 and Message 231, it is a silly, irrelevant and unimportant question.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Rob, posted 08-26-2007 11:26 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Taz, posted 08-26-2007 11:46 AM jar has not replied
 Message 247 by Rob, posted 08-26-2007 11:46 AM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 253 of 297 (418132)
08-26-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Rob
08-26-2007 11:46 AM


Re: False dichotomy.
Can things illogical be understood? Can something illogical be correct? Can jabberwocky make sense?
Certainly illogical things can be understood and they can also be correct. You have been given many such examples. Can Jabberwocky makes sense? No, by definition.
jar said:
It is not logical that something can be both a wave and a particle, but somethings are.
to which Rob replied:
quote:
Like God being both God and man and the light of the world?
Once again, irrelevant, unimportant and unsupported.
Yet again you are trying to misdirect the audience so they don't see you palm the pea.
The fact that something can be both a wave and a particle is based on observation. It is not logical or even reasonable with the knowledge we currently hold, but it is reality.
So far though, there has been no evidence presented that God even exists. The topic though, in case you missed it, is "God caused or uncaused?" and as pointed out in Message 194, Message 212, Message 231 and Message 242 it is irrelevant, unimportant and inderterminate.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Rob, posted 08-26-2007 11:46 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Rob, posted 08-26-2007 12:01 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 257 of 297 (418136)
08-26-2007 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Rob
08-26-2007 12:01 PM


Re: False dichotomy.
You never answered the question jar. You're railroading the thread. using up the post count.
The only one palming the pea is jar.
Since you do not specify which question I failed to answer, it's pretty hard to respond.
I'm sorry Rob but the audience can read Message 194, Message 212, Message 231, Message 242 and now Message 253 and see whether or not I addressed your questions. I think they will find that I did so.
If you have a question which you believe I did not answer please post it and I will either link to the message where I tried to answer it or try to answer it yet again.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Rob, posted 08-26-2007 12:01 PM Rob has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 268 of 297 (418147)
08-26-2007 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Rob
08-26-2007 12:57 PM


Still more irrelevant stuff
Rob, throughout this thread as well as others, instead of addressing the topic, which in case you missed it is "God caused or uncaused?", you simply resort to posting irrelevant nonsense.
Psalm 119 has NOTHING to do with the topic.
Others have tried to address the topic, personally in Message 194, Message 212, Message 231, Message 242 and Message 253 as well as other messages in this thread I have tried to address the topic as well as the false dichotomies, misrepresentations, misdirection and simply false assertions you have made.
I am going to go to church with my family and spend some precious time with like minded people.
Perhaps that is one of your problems, not the fact of spending time with your family, that is essential, but that you spend too much time with like minded people. By segregating yourself within a community of like minded people, you preclude the possibility of learning anything new.
Avoid the like minded people. Throw them away. Seek out those who challenge your positions, who question your assumptions, who question the very Axioms you use.
That is where you at least have the possibility of learning.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Rob, posted 08-26-2007 12:57 PM Rob has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 272 of 297 (418158)
08-26-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Rob
08-26-2007 12:46 PM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
All I am saying is that A is A, and not -A.
God is logic. Therefore His logical reason for existing is found within Himself.
However you never bothered to support that position with anything more than one of several possible definitions from a dictionary.
The problem with that is that definitions provide no support for a position and the fact that a Dictionary does not tell us anything more than a history of how a word is used in general conversation.
To make it worse the definition you used all the way back in Message 1:
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
which is from this online Dictionary
does not support your assertion that God is logic. In fact, logic is not even mentioned in the definition.
You assert that God is logic. Well, Loki the Trickster was often illogical yet Loki is God so God can be illogical.
So far you have provided no evidence of your assertion that "Reality (God) is logical" or that "logic is uncaused" even though others have explained to you that logic is simply a human construct, that logic can and often is internally and externally consistent while the logical construct is also wrong.
Throughout this thread you have simply provided unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion, and in many cases, when examined those assertion have been shown to be false, and as in this case, not even supported by your own sources.
Then as usual, you trot out the old canard of the Law of Non Contradiction as though it had any relevance or even merit with this topic.
The Law of Non Contradiction may be valid in some cases, however it is also not applicable or correct in all. As has been pointed out to you, there are things that are particles and waves. The chair still supports me even though in reality it is mostly nothing.
The topic, in case you missed it, is "God caused or uncaused?" and I honestly thing that were those two issues taken as Axiomatic, and interesting discussion might develop from the consequences of each position. However it would be important to remember that the initial premise is only Axiomatic, taken as true for the sake of the argument and unrelated to whether either position is in fact true.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Rob, posted 08-26-2007 12:46 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Rob, posted 08-28-2007 12:55 AM jar has replied
 Message 284 by Rob, posted 08-28-2007 1:16 AM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 285 of 297 (418420)
08-28-2007 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Rob
08-28-2007 12:55 AM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
As I pointed out in Message 272:
Then as usual, you trot out the old canard of the Law of Non Contradiction as though it had any relevance or even merit with this topic.
The Law of Non Contradiction may be valid in some cases, however it is also not applicable or correct in all. As has been pointed out to you, there are things that are particles and waves. The chair still supports me even though in reality it is mostly nothing. It is possible to love and hate someone at the same time.
The topic, in case you missed it, is "God caused or uncaused?" and I honestly thing that were those two issues taken as Axiomatic, and interesting discussion might develop from the consequences of each position. However it would be important to remember that the initial premise is only Axiomatic, taken as true for the sake of the argument and unrelated to whether either position is in fact true.
Something can be a wave and a particle. My favorite ice cream can be chocolate ice cream and strawberry ice cream and cherry ice cream. The chair can support me even though it is mostly not there.
In addition, the topic, in case you missed it, is "God caused or uncaused?" and I honestly thing that were those two issues taken as Axiomatic, and interesting discussion might develop from the consequences of each position. However it would be important to remember that the initial premise is only Axiomatic, taken as true for the sake of the argument and unrelated to whether either position is in fact true.
So the whole strawman of the alleged Law of Non Contradiction is irrelevant to the thread.
You also ignore the rest of the points raised in Message 272 and seem to hope that by raising the strawman of Law of Non Contradiction no one will notice you palmed the pea.
A good example is your ignoring the rebuttal to your assertion that "Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused" where I pointed out to you that Loki is often illogical yet is God and therefore God does not equate to either reality or logic.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Rob, posted 08-28-2007 12:55 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Rob, posted 08-28-2007 1:18 AM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 287 of 297 (418422)
08-28-2007 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Rob
08-28-2007 1:18 AM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
As I pointed out in Message 285
In addition, the topic, in case you missed it, is "God caused or uncaused?" and I honestly thing that were those two issues taken as Axiomatic, and interesting discussion might develop from the consequences of each position. However it would be important to remember that the initial premise is only Axiomatic, taken as true for the sake of the argument and unrelated to whether either position is in fact true.
So the whole strawman of the alleged Law of Non Contradiction is irrelevant to the thread.
You also ignore the rest of the points raised in Message 272 and seem to hope that by raising the strawman of Law of Non Contradiction no one will notice you palmed the pea.
A good example is your ignoring the rebuttal to your assertion that "Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused" where I pointed out to you that Loki is often illogical yet is God and therefore God does not equate to either reality or logic.
You still avoid discussing the topic and bring up irrelevancies.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Rob, posted 08-28-2007 1:18 AM Rob has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 289 of 297 (418424)
08-28-2007 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Rob
08-28-2007 1:16 AM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
Rob writes:
You sound like a broken record jar...
However you never bothered to support that position...However you never bothered to support that position...However you never bothered to support that position...However you never bothered to support that position...However you never bothered to support that
position...However you never bothered to...However you never bothered to support that position... support that position...However you never bothered to support that position...
Misrepresenting...
Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting...
Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting...
I have never yet met a man who is so obsessed with the sin of others and accusing them day and night.
Demonizing and condemning them...
Until Ad Populum is the rule of the game and everyone is repeating after jar...
Joseph Goebles would be proud...
I have tried very hard to actually document any such instances, and to restrict myself to addressing the content of the messages you post and to address the actual topic of the thread. I also try very hard to provide links to earlier messages so that the audience can easily follow the sub-threads as they develop. If I am in error, then it should be a simple matter of you providing links to where the issue is raised and later resolved.
In particular I would appreciate links to messages where I "Demonizing and condemning them..." I have made every effort to address the message and not the person.
AbE:
I don't believe I was the person who said "Personally, I don't think you have the mental capacity to comprehend the issues being discussed here." as can be found in Message 191 or "It's just beyond you jar. it's no big deal... we all have our limitations." as found in Message 193.
END AbE:
I hope that helps.
Edited by jar, : add edit

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Rob, posted 08-28-2007 1:16 AM Rob has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024