God caused or uncaused?

jar: It just so happens that our postulations actually reflect reality. Otherwise they would not be actual scientific empericism.I post jar's observations not in response to jar, but for all of you. According to jar, it appears that reality simply is. It is uncaused. And it was there before we observed it as I said in post 155.Or as Jesus said, 'before Abraham was; I AM'.I think a repost of the entirety of post 155 needs to be made. A lot of people are missing what was said. Some don't have the intuitive capacity to comprehend it. there is nothing that can be done for them... For the rest of you like mark, who actually can ask intelligent questions and engage without logically fallacious complex questions I provide it now: [quote]mark24: Yes...mark24: It simply the scientific method, but I would like to use my own words.Internal coherence is the logical coherence within any given philosophy or theory as you said. Almost anything can be internally coherent (ie.'The unicorn created the universe'). Worth noting, is that internal incoherence (ie. 'I do not exist') is accepted by virtually no-one.External coherence is the logical pattern (story) that the evidence tells with or without our understanding (ie. systems of facts and laws as yet undiscovered). It is worth noting that we asssume this to be the case before even attempting to understand scientifically.And when the evidence -available to all parties- matches any theory we have tested and combined coherence + or -.When we have total coherence, it moves beyond theory and suppositions to fact or law. Theories in conflict with law and fact are then ammended or discarded because they lack coherence with said laws and facts.This can be as simple as the theory that the universe is ordered. And that is a theory held long ago. The discovery of law and order has since proven that theory to be a fact. Hence the scientific enterprise.It is this combined coherence to one level or another, that I am looking at in particular.The interesting thing is... that until this combined coherence/incoherence is discovered, everyone believes that their philosophy (theory) matches the evidence. So there is another method applied by science historically, and it called the 'Inference to the best explanation'.You will find a critique of IBE here: Philosophy | The University of EdinburghI found wikipedia's explaination of IBE particularly fascinating, and I think we all know where the buzz comes from. The machinery is rolling to attempt to cover all the bases. The Ad Populum fallacy maneuver is in full swing.The fact is, IBE is historically part of our ordinary reasoning process. The last paragraph of the PDF link I gave above, sums up the difficulty for what I presume will be your position on the matter. Empericism will be acting in a revisionist mode by adopting this position strictly for the purposes of denying ID.So, I now need to show how this relates to the debate between ID and the TOE, and then move on to it's relation to the thread topic.There is a particular mystery in biological systems. One that the TOE is incapable of adressing in terms of current evidence. On this issue, the TOE is hopelessly metaphysical. It is the presence of a quaternary digital code that stores the information to build all of the parts in any given organism.And no organism has been found that deos not have this code.There is only one cause (emperically) that we see information resulting from, and that is intelligence.So everything we know in terms of evidence shows the theory of 'inference to design' to match the pattern of the evidence. If we received information with radio telescopes that was defined as a code, or even a simple signal of mathematical expresssions, we would know immediately that it originated from an intelligence (SETI).If there is some unknown cause for the formation of information we have yet to find any evidence for it. It amounts to a theory with no evidence to support it. But we have a myriad of evidence for the ability of intelligence to be the cause of information.Furthermore, to use the argument of mutation as a means of giving a cause to the pattern in DNA is futile... because you have nothing to mutate out of the starting gate. Not to mention the host of other machinery (cell walls, energy conversion factories, transporting and transcripting machines etc...) necessary for the DNA to be of any use. Neither DNA, RNA, or any proteins are able to function autonomously. And that is all based upon the evidence available today. Speculations as to alternative material explanations are purely theoretical and have no evidence whatsoever to support them. They lack combined coherence of any kind with the enidence. A material explanation is consistent with the fact that there are material explanations for many other things in the universe. But not the evidence in biological appearence.As Jonathan Wells said, 'Natural selection can explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest'.Even more mystifying, is that the current definition of science limits [b]scientific explanation[/]b strictly to material causes. And that is a position that is purely philosophical in terms of reasoning. There is no evidence to suggest that we must confine all things into that box. As Richard Lewontin admits, it is an a priori adherence to materialism. It is predetermining what the evidence is allowed to show in terms of testing our theories. In fact, the evidence shows quite the opposite. There is tremedous evidence of non material forces causing matter to behave according to their will.Do the physical laws have material causes, or do they cause the material to behave in a manner that reflects them?What would happen to matter without the laws that hold the atom together?Is the quantum dimension materially caused?Here is something that is completely taken for granted in much of the arena. We have this connection between mankind and the universe at large. The universe reflects incredible simplicity in terms of law and order, which results in incredible sophistication in terms of material behavior. We should expect that our minds would reflect that order also since we are a part of it. Why would anyone conclude that our perceptions run on a system counter to the very nature that supposedly gave us those perceptions to begin with? Are our minds the only thing in the universe that is bent away from the otherwise universal and simple logical order?Where else do we see order being established?In the actions of intelligent human beings who take resources and build with information they have formulated. All of it operating on the most basic principle of logic (law of non contradiction) or LNC.It's all perfectly natural and emperical. This logical (or mathematical) pattern runs our reality from top to bottom. Without LNC, nothing that has been made is made.Reality is ordered though materially it is diminishing. The laws remain the same, but the material itself is diminishing.The logic (immaterial) that the material universe is built upon and sustained by is not caused. The material is the only thing where the laws of causality apply by definition. As far as the material world is concerned, logic is the cause.And where do we find logic?Bingo! intelligence.If you say that we invented it, I say your quite right (intelligence), that's the evidence. And then I just point you to the heavens and say, 'Which came first'? Our minds cannot have created the universe that we are a part of even though some new age pantheists say just that.The reason I say logic isn't caused is because it isn't; it just is. Or as according to the Bible, God told Moses, "Tell them 'I AM' sent you". It is the law of noncontradiction. Without it, we have no science or reasoning whatsoever. We don't even have a universe. It holds all things together.And if we try to deny LNC, we only prove it, because we cannot argue for any thing, position, or concept without using it. Our thinking is utterly dependent upon Him (I mean 'it' )Now this brings me to my next point. We don't have to use ID to explain everything. Though I might argue that the universe as a whole is intelligently designed according to laws originating in wisdom and logic of God's omniscient mind, it does not mean that every system within it can be understood by this revelation. There are material causes within the system that are best understood by the mechanics that we can observe. I only remind you that mechanics is goverened by 'sovereign laws'.If we want to understand reality, we have to understand both.Dr. Wells catures the point very well: Now just between me and you mark... I don't think this is going to happen. ID is going to be defeated after an initial harvest and battle. I don't know how long it will gain acceptance, before it is defeated, but it will be defeated. Otherwise the Bible would be untrue.It will seems as though ID has given the materialsits a fatal wound, but they will prevail on material terms by shear defiance. Ultimately they will prevail only after the rapture of the church.He (mankind as a concensus) will insist that materialism be the absolute in spite of the non-material reasoning that anchors the pressuposition itself which is only philosophical. He (mankind) by Ad Populum fallacy, will create a false dichotomy between the material and the nonmaterial. He has already done so...There is an insistence that the only thing that be considered and worshiped for guidance is the creation itself (the material world) known as the Biblical metaphor, 'the beast'. By rejecting logic, they crucify their true self.[/quote]

The existence of logic itself that matches our constructs to create total coherence. The emperical world itself!Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.The physical world proves our logical constructs valid. That is what started science. From Copernicus to Newton, 'God said it, it must be so. Let's prove it'...Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.No logically solid physical laws governing physics, and even physicality cannot hold together.Ask a physicist what would happen if the physical laws changed. They do not change.Reality is absolute, logical, and uncaused. And the defintion of God is 'reality'. Reality does cause the physical world, though it is itself uncaused and unchanging.Malachi 3:6 "I the Lord do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.Psalm 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.Think about it...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

is now... Sentance restructured in message 177, to show original intent without the possibility of misinterpretation.Or I could accuse you of misrepresentation...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

mark24: Logic / reality?Could have doesn't cut it emperically mark.mark24: It's just the nature of logic mark. It's self affirming. It never came to be, it simply is. Without it, nothing orderly can be. And all of our inferences fall to pieces.Everything is dependent upon it...I like the way John put it. You may not buy it personally, but see if you follow:

jar: Do you know what the physical world is made of jar?Are you familliar with the quantum dimension?Did you know that an atom is ninety percent empty space?Did you know that all matter is made of energy?Is energy a particle or a wave?You worship the creation, I understand. I worship the creator. If you want to preach the creation, then start a thread on the absoluteness of materialism. YOu'll find Lewontin's quotes quite helpful. Perhaps I will stop by and ask you some questions.But I won't stop by and say, 'No your wrong' without actually explaining myself. That would not be a debate, it would simply be a fight.

mark24: You're missing the point mark... Logic wasn't created by God. Logic is God. Reality (God) is logical.mark24: And that is why we have to cohere it with the physical world. I never suggested otherwise.mark24: I never said logic was made. I am saying that it is uncaused (ie. not made).And as I showed in post 155 (need I post it again)... the physical world is the confirmation that our logic is valid. The coherence of the two is the proof. But the physical world preceded us, so how did we create it?It's like I said before... "I have a friend. His name is reality. He loves His son. The son's name is logic. and logic never lies".Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

You said yourself that 'reality IS the physical world'. I therfore presume you believe in the physical world (the creation).You believe in the creation. I believe in God.What you believe is what you worship jar. It is the idea you serve and defend.You servant of materialism you.

Is there anything that I can say that you will agree with?Because it very much seems to me that you get off on denying any and every argument.You're an inconquerable and contrarian beast.Good for you. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

jar: That's all I've been doing except for your distractions. You may want to re-read the thread. Especially the last dozen posts.Personally, I don't think you have the mental capacity to comprehend the issues being discussed here.

It's not a personal attack jar. It's just the only conclusion I can reach, since you think I have not addressed the topic.It's just beyond you jar. it's no big deal... we all have our limitations.You have no interest in moving the thread along, because you are opposed to the whole thing. You're not fooling anyone.The only one palming the pea is you.I am not asserting that God is logical and that logic is uncaused as a belief. I am actually explaining why that is so. And I have gone to great lengths to do so.I cannot decide if your participation here is for the amusement of 'qualified members' of EVC, or just a lack of intellectual capacity. But it's one or the other. That's how I see it.Either way, I ask that you please no longer participate in this thread. Thank you in advance.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Now that was a response!Now I have something from you to think about and reply to.Though many of the issues you raised were already addressed in this thread, you have repositioned the concept in a way that may be extremely beneficial to the discussion.Thank you jar. My response will be forthcoming.

Archer: mark and I already went round and round with this.Quantifiable? ie. mathematical?Well of course... one cannot rely on his senses to tell him his senses are valid. It must be tested by good reasoning (ie. mathematical / logical thinking).What is philosophy?It is applied logic. applied logic | Fallacies, Varieties, & Facts | BritannicaSo, good philosophy is simply mathematical observation and testing of an idea.All of the above is dependent on the validity of the law of non-contradiction (ie. logic).Call it math, call it philosophy, call it sensory. The point is we are all seeking logical (philosophical) coherence between the physical world, our experiences of it, and logic.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

mark24: Who said a lie is logical? It is only internally coherent. You and I have already agreed that we must have internal and external coherence. It is a complete picture that is ultimately and totally logical.Why do we even have to rehash this?mark24: Here is the question... and it is my response to jar as well:

​

Is logic valid when it matches the external and internal test and is formed into a composite whole?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

http://EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused? -->EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused?

Ringo: The physical world is logical. It is governed by elegant mathematical laws. They have been tested.So our only salvation is logic. It is the only light we have with wich to understand anything. It is our primary reasoning process.Do we have faith that it is valid or not?Where do we place our faith?As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord who is a man of His Word (logos ie. logic).